U.S.
AMERICA HAS A STOP AND FRISK PROBLEM. JUST LOOK AT PHILADELPHIAB Y J O S H S A U L O N 5 / 1 8 / 1 6 A T 6 : 0 0 A M
Subscribe Sign In
Page 1 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
The cops got angry. They swore at and handcuffed the driver and passenger, a city
employee and a retired tailor, and put them both in a patrol car. Williams, standing next
to his black Chrysler with legislative tags, pulled out his state representative I.D. and
even pointed to his home, which was on the other side of an overgrown lot. “Get back in
your fucking car before I give you a bunch of tickets,” one cop told him, according to
court papers.
U . S . S T O P A N D F R I S K P O L I C E
Subscribe Sign In
Page 2 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
When Williams, a retired Temple University police officer who is now Philadelphia’s
sheriff, told the cops he wanted to speak to a supervisor on that March 28, 2009, day,
one officer ratcheted cuffs tightly around his wrists, and a sergeant who had arrived on
the scene pushed him inside a police car. The cops ferried the two handcuffed elderly
men a half-dozen blocks in the back of a patrol car as another cop drove their car to the
same spot. The men were dropped on the side of the road without charges, with the
police returning their car and cash—minus the bills that blew away, court papers state.
Williams was held for much longer as his constituents looked on and his daughter
Jewell Williams sued the city of Philadelphia in 2010, becoming a lead plaintiff in a landmark class-action lawsuit that accused the city of an illegal stop-and-frisk policy that targeted black and Latino men.
J O S H S A U L F O R N E W S W E E K
Subscribe Sign In
Page 3 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
pleaded with the police to let him go. “I sat out here like I was on public auction,” he
tells Newsweek, echoing the experiences of countless black men who have sat on curbs
in front of their families. “Then we went to the district.”
Williams, a tall man, rode to the 23rd District police station handcuffed and in the back
of a patrol car with his size 13 feet propped up on the seat beside him. He was released
several hours later without charges. Later that evening, he met with then-Mayor
Michael Nutter and his police commissioner. But Williams wasn’t pacified. He sued the
City of Brotherly Love in 2010, the ex-cop reluctantly becoming a lead plaintiff in a
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Cook County Sheriff police officers search a woman and a vehicle during a street stop in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago on September 9.
J I M Y O U N G / R E U T E R S
Subscribe Sign In
Page 4 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
class-action lawsuit that accused the city of an illegal stop-and-frisk policy that
targeted black and Latino men. The lawsuit and the ensuing 2011 settlement have slowly
forced Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell and the nation’s fourth-largest police
department, to change how it stops and searches its residents. But a March 22 report
written by the lawyers representing Williams found that police are violating the
settlement, and the lawyers threatened to seek sanctions if no progress is made within
six months.
That ugly scene outside the Red Top and the changes it sparked reflect a national push
to reform stop and frisk, which can be either a valuable tool to catch criminals or an
ugly wedge that makes minorities hate cops. “Philly is not unique. Philly is part of a
larger picture around the country,” says Ezekiel Edwards, director of the American Civil
Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project. “The police in city after city are
targeting poor communities of color and using their discretionary and fairly awesome
authority to stop somebody on the street walking to work, on the subway, on a bike, and
questioning them and often frisking them to see if they come up with anything.”
Subscribe Sign In
Page 5 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
Police in New York City stopped almost 700,000 people in 2011, the peak year under
then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But a class-action lawsuit almost identical to the one
filed by Williams resulted in a federal order that police stop someone only if they have a
reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to
commit a crime. The number of stops last year fell to 23,000. That’s a huge drop, but the
litigation is ongoing: Earlier this year, the federal monitor said in his latest report that
in over a quarter of the New York stops he reviewed, police weren’t recording the
suspicion that made them stop a suspect. The number of street stops in Chicago
reportedly fell by 80 percent this year after a new policy made cops document their
stops with a two-page “Investigatory Stop Report.” And last year the Boston Police
Department implemented a policy that bars stops based on race after a report found
that cops were mostly stopping black people. In the past year, Newark, New Jersey, and
Cleveland both signed agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that will
revamp how their police stop and frisk.
To get a clearer picture of racial profiling, Minneapolis police last year started
recording both the race of the people they stop and the reason. Ferguson, Missouri,
settled a DOJ probe this year by promising reforms to its cops and courts, including
stop and frisk, and Seattle has had a federal monitor overseeing how its police stop and
search since early 2014.
Philadelphia has long had legal fights over the practice. In 1985, then-Police
Commissioner Gregore Sambor ordered his officers to search for drugs on everyone
who walked through 51 intersections frequented by dealers. He then invited reporters to
watch “Operation Cold Turkey,” and some police districts even made up rubber stamps
to mark the arrest forms with the name of the operation. Over two days, the cops
Demonstrator Jihadou Kwantu holds a sign protesting the New York Police Department's "stop and frisk" crime-fighting tactic outside of Manhattan Federal Court in New York on March 18, 2013. The city was defending the policy in court from a class action suit that four black men filed in 2008 alleging police improperly targeted them because of their race.
R E U T E R S / L U C A S J A C K S O N
Subscribe Sign In
Page 6 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
arrested 1,444 people, almost none of whom were doing anything wrong, including one
diabetic man who was on his way to dialysis.
The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit less than a week later, and the city quickly settled it
with payments of $100 for anyone stopped and $1,250 for anyone stopped and
arrested—plus the promise never to stop and frisk people based on their presence in a
designated area. In the late 1980s, two other federal cases rapped Philadelphia for illegal
stops, and yet another federal lawsuit was settled in 1996, with a $6 million payout and a
plan to monitor the practice.
“We used to be better known for police brutality than for cheesesteaks,” says David
Kairys, a law professor at Temple University and longtime Philadelphia civil rights
attorney who brought the Operation Cold Turkey lawsuit. Kairys tells Newsweek he
believed the settlement for that suit would eliminate “rampant profiling and stops and
frisks without a basis…. But I quickly realized that it didn’t and it won’t.”
Subscribe Sign In
Page 7 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
Sitting at a conference table in his grand, wood-paneled office, Mayor Jim Kenney and
his police commissioner, Richard Ross Jr., responded to Newsweek’s questions about
stop and frisk. As I ask my first question, Kenney interrupts: His police don’t do stop
and frisk—“constitutional pedestrian stops” is the term he prefers.
“There was stuff that the police did during the Rizzo years—the cops were in charge,”
Kenney says later in the interview, referring to Frank Rizzo, the police commissioner
and then the mayor—from 1968 to 1980—who was often accused of police brutality both
by himself and his officers. Kenney described the Rizzo years as a period when citizens
had a choice between following police orders quickly or getting smacked. “You did what
you were told, and if you didn’t do it fast enough, you got your head split open. That’s
what we’re dealing with now, the residual of that history...and it’s hard to correct it in
four months.”
Kenney, who took office in January, says the numbers outlined in a recent report—a
third of stops and almost half of all frisks were made without reasonable
suspicion—reflect the previous administration and aren’t “our numbers.” (Philadelphia
police stopped about 215,000 people in 2015, but the first quarter of 2016 showed a 10
percent drop in the number of stops compared with the same period last year,
according to David Rudovsky, a lawyer representing Williams and the other plaintiffs.)
Kenney also says reform is necessary to create an environment where citizens will give
police information about violent criminals.
From left, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross and Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney at Philadelphia's Police Recruit Graduation ceremony on January 29.
J O S E P H G I D J U N I S
Subscribe Sign In
Page 8 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
Ross, who was deputy police commissioner when Williams was arrested and attended
the meeting in which then-Mayor Nutter apologized, lays out the reforms he and the
mayor say will cut the number of unconstitutional stops. For the first time, police
officers will face progressive discipline if they fail to fill out the reports that document
their stops. The 21 captains who oversee the city’s 21 police districts now examine those
reports each day, instead of their bosses reviewing them once every three months.
On weekdays, the plaza outside City Hall fills with young professionals drinking iced
coffee and eating $10 sandwiches. But walk north on Broad Street toward the
neighborhood where Jewell Williams was handcuffed and the city changes in just a few
blocks. I stroll by churches and gas stations, and the New Freedom Theatre, which has
posters up for a play titled The Ballad of Trayvon Martin. There’s a burst of businesses
Philadelphia Police officers patrol a street in Philadelphia on June 28, 2012.
J E S S I C A K O U R K O U N I S / T H E N E W Y O R K T I M E S / R E D U X
Subscribe Sign In
Page 9 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
and activity clustered around Temple University, but when I reach York Street, three
miles north of City Hall, there are empty lots and boarded-up buildings, and a man
standing outside a gas station on one leg and two crutches asks me for a dollar.
I think of a 1989 Newsweek feature story about the neighborhood that described the
flourishing drug trade, showed children holding guns and called Williams an
“ombudsman for a neighborhood in serious trouble.” A beat cop even said the
neighborhood was too crime-ridden to be saved, noting, “We lost this generation.”
Newsweek's September 11, 1989 story on crime in Philadelphia.
J O S H S A U L F O R N E W S W E E K
Subscribe Sign In
Page 10 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
On the street where Williams was arrested, residents are split on the question of stop
and frisk. Mildred Wagner, 24, an Amazon delivery driver, criticized the way the
practice is carried out in terms that mirrored what Kenney told me earlier that day. “It’s
not the 1970s—they don’t have the right to stop and frisk anybody,” she says, sounding
like statements in any one of the lawsuits that have been filed from coast to coast to
reform the practice. Wagner described how police stopped her about 18 months ago as
she returned from a Rite Aid store, then ordered her to get inside her house. “I wasn’t
doing any mischief. That makes me feel like I can’t trust the police.”
But some of the people who hate being stopped on York Street are police targets for a
good reason. “The last time I got stopped and frisked, I did four years,” says Quadir
Smith, 26, who admits that he was stopped and arrested on marijuana and gun charges.
Melvin Carter, a 51-year-old demolition worker, says, “They need to get these guns off
the street. If that’s the only way they can do it, I’m 50 percent for it.”
R E Q U E S T R E P R I N T O R S U B M I T C O R R E C T I O N
Sponsored Topics
1 Best Roth IRA
2 Best Smartphones for Business
3 Retirement Planning Calculator
4 2016 Best Antivirus Software
5 Term Life Insurance Rates
6 Highest CD Rates Today
7 Cloud Computing Providers
8 Compare High-Speed Internet
Promoted Links Ads by Revcontent
Subscribe Sign In
Page 11 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Join the Discussion
Skip The Mattress Store - Don't Get Ripped OffLULL
1 Easy Exercise That Fixes DiabetesSmart Blood Sugar
New Unauthorized Video Could Force Hillary to Give Up Her White House DreamsHealth Sciences Institute
CBD Oil Now Available In Local Area, Says Hemp CompanyHealthy Report
These Celebrities Committed Suicide In 2016 And We Are Heartbroken!TheDailyHeel
Female Billionaires That You'll Never Hear AboutForbes
The Algorithm That Can Calculate Your Shirt Size in SecondsProper Cloth
The NSA Are Watching U.S Citizens Online. Stop Them With This Simple Trick!Insider Tech Advice
Subscribe Sign In
Page 12 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
90 Comments Sort by
JonesHugh · Owner/operator at Silver Shamrock Family AntiquesHis story is probally not completely accurate. But if he wants communities to go back to being run by street gangs peddling crack and shooting each other with the police poweless to stop it. Let him. Its time not to police areas that hate the police and let them deal with the problem
Like · Reply · 33 · May 18, 2016 8:10am
DonnAvian All the police have to do is curb their racism and behave professionally. I guess that's just too hard for them to figure out. And people in those communities pay their taxes, which pay the police salaries, so no, police can't stop doing the job communities are paying them to do. I know that a favorite white revenge fantasy, but it's not going to happen.
Like · Reply · 23 · 23 hrs
ManCave · Washington, District of ColumbiaMaybe if they stop and frisk white boys going into movies there wont be mass shootings
Like · Reply · 28 · 23 hrs
JonesHugh · Owner/operator at Silver Shamrock Family AntiquesAvian Donn it is happening it's happening right now in Baltimore, Chicago, New York everywhere police are being unfairly targeted by the criminal elements supporters and racists who hate police. The we pay your salary thing is garbage. You are lucky you have people volunteer to go out and try to stop the flood of people behaving horribly and trying to kill rape and rob from each other. Put every day police officer go out and try to put a finger in a damn to hold back the flood of chaos and are hated for it because it shows how people like you do nothing for society but bitch about how horrible the people trying to help are.
Like · Reply · 18 · 23 hrs
Show 10 more replies in this thread
MayDonna · Illinois State UniversityAmerica has a MSM problem.
Like · Reply · 10 · May 18, 2016 8:26am
MarcPaul · Way below my capabilities at Lots of Knot-HaidsYou dissing our "beloved" traitor media ?Right...every sane person knows the score except the traitor circle-the-wagons-leftist
di
OldestOldest
Add a comment...
Subscribe Sign In
Page 13 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Subscribe Sign In
Page 14 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
Most Read
Why the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is at Risk of Unraveling
'The Walking Dead': Rick Grimes Will Die, Says Creator
Subscribe Sign In
Page 15 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Harry Styles Shows Off New Haircut on Set of New Film
'Game of Thrones': 'Book of the Stranger' Preview
Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out
Subscribe Sign In
Page 16 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
More From Newsweek
Gunmen Kill 14 Near Los Angeles in Worst Mass Shooting Since Sandy HookGunman Who Killed Virginia News Crew Dies After Shooting Himself
by Revcontent
Subscribe Sign In
Page 17 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
Most Read
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Why the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is at Risk of Unraveling
'The Walking Dead': Rick Grimes Will Die, Says Creator
Harry Styles Shows Off New Haircut on Set of New Film
'Game of Thrones': 'Book of the Stranger' Preview
Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out
RELATED STORIES
Subscribe Sign In
Page 18 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
© 2 0 1 6 N E W S W E E K L L C
About Us
Corrections
Contact Us
OPINION
Chicago Cops Are Abusing Stop-and-Frisk
Police target minorities disproportionately--and do not...
U.S.
‘Jump-Outs,’ the ‘Stoand-Frisk’ of D.C.
As people around the countdebate racial policing and.Subscribe Sign In
Page 19 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
IBT Media
Careers
Advertise
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Terms of Sale
Archive
BERNIE MEV WOMEN'S LUCIOUS SANDALS
(9)
$78.45 - $156.00Shop nowShop now
Subscribe Sign In
Page 20 of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia
5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mahari Bailey, et al., :
Plaintiffs : C.A. No. 10-5952
:
v. :
:
City of Philadelphia, et al., :
Defendants :
PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH REPORT TO COURT AND MONITOR
ON STOP AND FRISK PRACTICES
I. Introduction
A. The Current State of Non-Compliance with the Consent Decree
This Fifth Report to the Court and Monitor presents compelling evidence that
nearly four years after the entry of the Consent Decree the City has failed to adequately
remedy the serious flaws that existed (and continue to exist) in the Police Department’s
stop and frisk practices. The Consent Decree was intended to ensure that stops and frisks
are conducted only where there is the requisite “reasonable suspicion” of criminal
conduct and to ensure that any racial disparities in stops and frisks are not the result of
racial bias. On the issue of whether stops and frisks are supported by reasonable
suspicion, the data shows very high levels of impermissible stops. And, on the issue of
whether impermissible racial factors are causing high numbers of racial minorities to be
stopped and frisked, consideration of the “benchmarks” for assessing possible racial bias
demonstrates that non-racial factors do not explain the racial disparities. As we discuss
below, there is an urgent need for substantial improvements on both issues, and if that is
not accomplished in the near future, we will seek court intervention.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 47
2
B. Procedural History
On June 21, 2011, the Court approved a Settlement Agreement, Class
Certification, and Consent Decree (“Agreement”) in this matter. On February 6, 2012,
plaintiffs submitted their First Report which analyzed stop and frisk data for the first two
quarters of 2011. The First Report focused on Fourth Amendment issues, and specifically
whether there was sufficient cause for the stops and frisks reported by the Philadelphia
Police Department (“PPD”). The audits showed that over 50% of stops and frisks were
undertaken without reasonable suspicion.
Plaintiffs’ Second Report was submitted in July 2012, and included (1) a Fourth
Amendment analysis of the Third Quarter 2011 stop and frisk data, (2) a racial analysis of
the data for the First and Second Quarters, 2011, and (3) a racial analysis of arrests for
possession of small amounts of marijuana for the period September 15-November 15,
2011. Plaintiffs reported continued high rates of stops and frisks without reasonable
suspicion (over 40% in both categories). On the question of racial disparities, plaintiffs’
expert, Professor David Abrams, considered the benchmarks that had been agreed upon
by the parties as metrics that should be used in this analysis. Professor Abrams also
conducted a series of regression analyses and concluded that the racial disparities in stops
and frisks (numbers by race compared to census data) were not fully explainable by
non-racial factors. Further, the analysis of marijuana arrests showed even more
pronounced disparities, with Blacks and Latinos constituting over 90% of all marijuana
arrests.
Plaintiffs’ Third Report focused on stop and frisk practices for the first two
quarters of 2012 and analyzed marijuana arrests for the period September 15-November
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 47
3
15, 2012. Plaintiffs again found a rate of non-compliance with Fourth Amendment
standards of over 40%, and racial minorities constituting over 90% of arrests for small
amounts of marijuana. In response, the City stated that the PPD was providing additional
training, issuing revised auditing protocols, and instituting new accountability measures.
The Fourth Report, filed in December, 2013, analyzed stops and frisks in 2012
and 2013, on both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. We found that pedestrian
stops were made without reasonable suspicion in 43% of the cases reviewed, and frisks
were conducted without reasonable suspicion in over 50% of the cases. There continued
to be very low “hit-rates,” with only 3 guns recovered in over 1100 stops (0.27%).
Overall, contraband of any kind was recovered in only 3% of the stops. We also noted the
relatively low number of frisks reported, with only 20% of stops resulting in frisks, and
numerous stops based on allegations of violent crime or weapon possession, where no
frisk was conducted.
The stops and frisks continued to be racially disproportionate with statistically
significant racial disparities that were not explained by non-racial factors (e.g., crime
rates, demographics of police districts, age, and gender). The rate of stops without
reasonable suspicion for Blacks was 6.5 percentage points higher than the rate for
Whites, indicating that police were using a higher threshold of “reasonable suspicion” for
stops of White suspects.
Thus, by the close of 2013, two and one-half years after the entry of the
Consent Decree in this case, there continued to be very high rates of stops and frisks
without reasonable suspicion and sufficient evidence to conclude that the racially
disproportionate rates of stops and frisks was not explainable by non-racial factors.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 47
4
Plaintiffs stated that the time for court intervention was drawing closer:
Plaintiffs did not expect that the transition from a stop and frisk practice that
lacked any meaningful oversight to a system that accurately tabulates all stops and
frisks and in which there is substantial compliance with the Constitution would be
immediately successful. On the technology front, the initial design of the data
base was flawed, but the City is moving to implement a new system. On the issue
of whether stops and frisks are being conducted consistent with established legal
standards, and in particular only where reasonable suspicion supports the stop or
frisk, the results of our audits through the first two quarters of 2012 reflect
persistent and unacceptably high rates of improper actions. Unless there is a
dramatic change in practices, we will be compelled to seek judicial relief. Third
Report, at 11.
Plaintiffs also stated that with the new electronic data system on-line in 2014 and
new audit and accountability measures in place, we expected significant improvements in
2014 and, failing such progress, that we would seek sanctions from the Court. Fourth
Report, at 9.1
On the Fourth Amendment issue, the City’s Response included an internal audit
that showed a 35% rate of pedestrian stops without reasonable suspicion by patrol
officers. The City asserted that the high rates of stops without reasonable suspicion were
the result of “incomplete paperwork, improper narratives used by police officers, and an
overall lack of credibility in the electronic data base.” City Reply, at 1. Further, the City
asserted that these problems would be rectified once the new electronic data base was
implemented, training of officers was completed, and better auditing procedures were
instituted.
On the Fourteenth Amendment issue, the City’s expert, Dr. Ralph Taylor of
Temple University, using certain benchmarks that differed from those agreed upon by the
1 The electronic data base developed by the City in 2011-2012 proved to be deficient in several respects and a new data base was developed and implemented in 2014.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 47
5
parties, found no statistically significant evidence of racial bias. To ensure that the
experts were in accord on the proper benchmarks, the parties met and conferred with the
Court Monitor, Dean Joanne Epps. Professor Abrams thereafter drafted a slightly revised
set of benchmarks which is the basis of his analysis in this Fifth Report.
We turn now to our analysis of the first two quarters, 2014.
C. The Data Review Process
Plaintiffs have established a careful and comprehensive review process of the stop
and frisk data provided by the Police Department. Each quarter, we are provided data
from approximately 3200 randomly selected pedestrian and car stops, but for our review
we consider only pedestrian stops. Counsel for plaintiffs and trained law students
independently review each pedestrian stop and frisk under guidelines that incorporate the
standards set forth in the Agreement and by the United States and Pennsylvania Supreme
Courts.2 We accept at face value the reasons stated by police officers for the stops and
frisks, and make assessments based solely on whether these reasons comport with
standards established by the Agreement and the Fourth Amendment. In close cases, we
credit the stated basis for the stop and frisk.
Counsel for plaintiffs have discussed the appropriate Fourth Amendment
standards with Inspectors in the PPD. Along the same lines, plaintiffs have provided the
City a breakdown of the categories of stops and frisks that have most frequently resulted
in improper police interventions. The City has made changes in the PPD audit process,
including the assignment of Deputy Commissioner Nola Joyce to oversee the
2 These reviews show a high level of agreement between counsel and the law students as to the
propriety of stops and frisks. This Report is based on counsel’s reviews.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 47
6
implementation of the Agreement, the assignment of trained Inspectors to ensure more
accurate reviews, and reviews by the PPD Office of Standards and Accountability.
II. Review of 75-48a Forms, First Two Quarters, 2014
A. Fourth Amendment Analysis
In this section, plaintiffs set forth their findings on the issue of whether stops and
frisks for the first two quarters of 2014 were supported by the requisite reasonable
suspicion. As in previous audits, in assessing whether reasonable suspicion existed for the
stop or frisk, we fully credited the narrative information provided by the officer and in
“close” cases credited the assertion of reasonable suspicion.3
For the first two quarters of 2014, the PPD provided a random sample of 2974
pedestrian stops. We determined that 2519 of these stops were actual pedestrian stops (as
opposed to arrests, car related stops, or contacts with civilians that did not constitute a
Terry stop). We also excluded stops at the airport as those stops (few in number) could
not be analyzed for racial disparities given the unknown racial demographics of airport
travelers and visitors. Of these 2519 pedestrian stops, 63% were supported by reasonable
suspicion and 37% were made without reasonable suspicion (and the same ratios were
found even including the few airport stops excluded from our analysis). Frisks were
reported in 589 stops, but 156 were searches and not frisks (often, searches incident to
arrest), thus leaving 433 actual frisks. Of these, 47% were made with reasonable
suspicion, 39% were made without reasonable suspicion, and 14% were preceded by a
3 With respect to frisks, we have created a third category for situations where the stop was
impermissible, but the reasons for the frisk were otherwise proper. In these cases, we record the frisk as
“the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Under this doctrine, the evidence that was seized would likely be
suppressed in a criminal prosecution due to the improper stop.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 47
7
stop without reasonable suspicion (“fruit of the poisonous tree” category). By race, 80%
of the stops were of minorities (African-Americans and Latinos) and 89% of the frisks
were of minorities.
1. Stop Data
Actual Stops 2519
Reasonable Suspicion 1578 63%
No Reasonable Suspicion 941 37%
Reasonable Suspicion
63%
No Reasonable Suspicion
37%
Stops: First Two Quarters, 2014
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 47
8
2. Frisk Data
Frisks 433 Reasonable Suspicion 204 47%
No Reasonable Suspicion 168 39%
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 61 14%
Reasonable Suspicion
47% No Reasonable
Suspicion 39%
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
14%
Frisks: First Two Quarters, 2014
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 8 of 47
9
3. Stop/Frisk Ratio
As noted above, while officers documented frisks in 589 cases, in 156 of these cases, the
officers conducted a search, and not a frisk. The 433 frisks represent 17% of the 2519
stops.
Non-Frisk 83%
Frisk 17%
Stops Followed By Frisk
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 9 of 47
10
4. Contraband Recovered by Stops
Non-Gun Contraband 53
Guns 5
No contraband 2461
Total Stops 2519
53 5
2461
Stops Resulting In Recovery Of Contraband
Non-Gun Contraband
Guns
Nothing
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 10 of 47
11
5. Contraband Recovered by Frisks
Non-Gun Contraband 19
Guns 2
No contraband 412
Total Frisks 433
6. Contraband Recovered By Frisks, With and Without Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable Suspicion 11 (out of 204 frisks with RS)
No Reasonable Suspicion 5 (out of 168 frisks without RS)
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 5 (out of 61 frisks as FPT)
19 2
412
Frisks Resulting In Recovery Of Contraband
Non-Gun Contraband
Guns
No Contraband
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 11 of 47
12
7. Racial Composition of Philadelphia (2010 Census)
1,517,550 total
White
644,395 42.46%
Black & African American 655,824 43.22%
Hispanic 128,928 8.50%
Asian 67,654 4.46%
American Indian / Pacific Islander / Other 20,749 1.37%
White 43%
Black & African American
43%
Hispanic 9%
Asian 4%
American Indian / Pacific Islander /
Other 1%
Racial Composition of Philadelphia
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 12 of 47
13
8. Stops by Race
Black 1803 71.58% 80.23% minorities
White 498 19.77%
Latino 218 8.65%
Total 2519
1803
498
218
Stops by Race
Black
White
Latino
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 13 of 47
14
9. Stops by Race and Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable Unreasonable Reasonable %
Black 1109 694 61.51%
White 339 159 68.07%
Latino 130 88 59.63%
Total 1578 941 2519
62.64% 37.36%
1109
339
130
694
159
88
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Black
White
Latino
Reasonable Basis For Stop
Reasonable Unreasonable
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 14 of 47
15
10. Frisks By Race
Black 344 79.45% 89.15% minorities
White 47 10.85%
Latino 42 9.70%
Total 433
344
47
42
Frisks by Race
Black
White
Latino
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 15 of 47
16
11. Frisks by Race and Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable Unreasonable FTPT Reasonable %
Black 171 124 49 49.71%
White 18 25 4 38.30%
Latino 15 19 8 35.71%
Total 204 168 61 433
47.11% 38.80% 14.09%
171
18
15
124
25
19
49
4
8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Black
White
Latino
Reasonable Basis for Frisk
Reasonable Unreasonable FTPT
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 16 of 47
17
B. Commentary on Fourth Amendment Issues
There are a number of significant findings from the data review.
1. We have determined that 37% of all stops were made without the requisite
reasonable suspicion. Significantly, the PPD audits show similar rates of stops without
reasonable suspicion: the audits for the first two quarters of 2014 by the PPD show patrol
officer stops without reasonable suspicion at 39% and 29%, respectively. The data show
only very modest improvement from the previous data reviews (where impermissible
stops were at 40-50%) and, in light of the over 200,000 pedestrian stops for 2014, tens of
thousands of persons in Philadelphia continue to be stopped each year without reasonable
suspicion. Thus, close to four years from the entry of the Settlement Agreement in this
case, the City has clearly failed to achieve substantial compliance with the provisions
requiring reasonable suspicion for stops of pedestrians.
2. We have also found that 39% of all frisks were made without reasonable
suspicion and an additional 14% were made in cases where the stop itself was not
supported by reasonable suspicion (“fruit of the poisonous tree”). The PPD audits for this
period show much lower rates of frisks without reasonable suspicion (5% and 3%,
respectively, for the first two quarters of 2014).
Given the large discrepancies in this data analysis, to demonstrate the validity of
our findings, we attach a spread-sheet of the relevant data for frisks for these two
quarters. See Exhibit A. The spread-sheet includes the D.C. number, the reasons for the
stop and the frisk, and our findings on the legality of the frisks (y=with reasonable
suspicion; n=without reasonable suspicion; x=a search and not a frisk; f=fruit of the
poisonous tree). This data and analysis shows that the City has not achieved substantial
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 17 of 47
18
compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement that require reasonable
suspicion that a suspect be armed and dangerous as a basis for a frisk.
3. As with the data for 2011-2013, the number of reported frisks is quite low,
with only 17% of stops recording a frisk (and an additional 6% resulting in a search). To
be clear, we do not suggest that the police should conduct frisks where there are no legal
grounds for such action. But we do strongly believe that officers have not been reporting
all frisks. For example, in stops based on suspicion of gun possession or a violent crime,
the police frequently report no frisk of the suspect. Of the 211 stops in which guns or
gun-related activity are referenced as a basis for the stop, there were no frisks recorded on
80 stops, or 38% of the total. It is simply not plausible to suggest that frisks are not being
conducted in these situations.
4. The very low “hit-rate” of stops and frisks is further cause for serious concern.
Contraband of any kind was recovered in only 58 stops (2.5 % of all stops) and 5 guns
were seized (0.2 % of all stops), but 3 of these seizures were the result of searches, not
frisks. Arrests occurred in 7.5% of all stops, excluding arrests made on probable cause
even before a stop or frisk was conducted. These hit-rates continue to be far below what
one would expect if stops and frisks were being conducted with reasonable suspicion.
We recognize that some legitimate stops are not likely to disclose contraband or lead to
an arrest and given the high rate of stops and frisks without reasonable suspicion, it is not
surprising that contraband is infrequently recovered in those incidents.
The best metric for determining whether these police interventions are justified is
one that determines the hit-rate for frisks, and whether weapons (or other contraband) are
seized. Police officers must have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 18 of 47
19
dangerous before a frisk can be conducted. Thus, we would expect that seizure of
weapons or other contraband would be made in a significant number of these cases if the
officers are accurately reporting facts that establish reasonable suspicion. Yet, the rate of
recovery is vanishingly small. Overall, of 433 frisks, only 2 firearms were seized and
contraband other than weapons was seized in only 19 other frisks. Thus, in over 95% of
all frisks, no evidence was seized. And the real number is likely even higher given the
fact that police reported no frisks in 80 stops involving violent crimes or reports of
weapons. And even more telling, if we limit our analysis to cases in where police
reported that the suspect was armed or involved in a violent crime, a weapon was seized
in a frisk in only 2 cases.
Moreover, the data raise serious questions regarding the justifications for many
frisks. Most frisk reports assert that the suspect has a “bulge” in a pocket, refuses to take
his hands out of his pockets, does not cooperate with police, or that the stop was based on
a report of a gun or violent crime. “Bulges” inevitably turn out to be cell phones and the
other triggering factors are very weak indicators of criminal activity. Thus, in 78 cases in
which police conducted a frisk based on a “bulge,” a weapon was detected in only 1 case.
The fact that so few frisks lead to the recovery of a weapon raises serious questions as to
whether the police are accurately reporting what they observe and whether the reasons
generally provided for frisks are appropriate proxies for weapon possession.
5. Reduction in the number of stops and frisks (and particularly those conducted
without reasonable suspicion) does not create a risk to public safety. For example, New
York City has reported a huge reduction in the number of stops and a decrease in violent
crime, and in particular homicides. New York City reported 700,000 stops per year in
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 19 of 47
20
2011, but was on target for approximately 50,000 stops in 2014. See Washington Post,
December 3, 2014. By contrast, in a City with a population one-fifth that of New York
City, Philadelphia police made over 200,000 pedestrian stops in 2014. In 2009, a year
before this case was filed, there were 253,000 pedestrian stops.
6. Analyzing improper stops and frisks by category, the results were quite
similar to those for 2013. As we have reported to the City, there continue to be significant
numbers of stops for conduct which the Agreement and case law make clear are not
justifiable grounds for stops or frisks. These include:
loitering (or persons hanging out; congregating)4
investigation of passenger in stopped car
person involved in a disturbance
single person “obstructing” the sidewalk
anonymous information (e.g., man with gun; man with drugs)
person on steps of or near “abandoned” property
person involved in verbal dispute (non-domestic)5
high crime area/roll call complaints
panhandling
suspicion of narcotics activity
As for frisks, problematic grounds include:
frisk for officer protection
4 The PPD has instructed officers that “loitering” is not a valid basis for a stop. And while the
number of such stops has decreased, the PPD has recognized that officers are using other vague narratives
(e.g., blocking buildings) to justify stops. PPD, September 6, 2013 Audit.
5 We credit reports of “domestic” disputes.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 20 of 47
21
frisk based on narcotics investigation
frisk because suspect stopped in high crime or high drug area
Moreover, as discussed above, given the extraordinarily low rate of recovery of weapons
or any contraband in frisk cases, there is good reason to believe that none of the factors
cited as establishing reasonable suspicion are good indicators of a person in possession of
a weapon.
7. We provide a more detailed analysis of racial disproportionality in the next
section, but as the stop and frisk data presented above shows, there is evidence of
disproportionate stops and frisks of minorities not explainable by factors other than race.
For example, in examining the differences by race of stops with and without reasonable
suspicion, White suspects are being stopped less frequently than minorities where no
reasonable suspicion is stated, indicating that a higher factual threshold is being applied
for stops of White suspects.
8. Although the reasons for the continued high rates of impermissible stops and
frisks are likely the result of several factors, we believe that the primary cause at this
point is the lack of accountability of officers and their immediate supervisors. There is
substantial agreement between the parties that the rate of stops without reasonable
suspicion continues to exceed 30% and plaintiffs’ analysis shows that the rate of frisks
without reasonable suspicion is even higher. The City reports that the PPD has retrained
all officers and has provided specific instructions to officers as to the proper grounds for
stops and frisks. In these circumstances, the failure of the PPD to hold officers
accountable is unacceptable. We have requested notice of any new accountability
measures, but there has been no response by the City on this front. Without strong
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 21 of 47
22
accountability measures, the high level of violations of constitutional rights will likely
continue.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 22 of 47
23
III. Racial Analysis of Stop and Frisk Practices, January-June, 2014
A. Introduction
This section sets forth a statistical analysis of the “Stop and Frisk” practices of the
PPD for the first half of 2014, conducted by plaintiffs’ expert, Professor David Abrams.
The benchmarks to be used in the analysis were described in detail in a Memorandum dated
November 9, 2011 and updated in 2014. See Exhibit B.
In creating benchmarks to measure compliance of the PPD with the terms of the
Agreement, we considered several criteria. First, the benchmarks are designed to be
straightforward in terms of computation and interpretation. Second, they are designed
to measure characteristics at the core of the Agreement, namely compliance with the
Fourteenth Amendment. Third, they consider other potential explanations for patterns in
the data beyond suspect race. The benchmarks are based on a combination of those
discussed and used in NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, academic literature on the topic,
and those used recently in other jurisdictions, as described in Plaintiffs’ Second Report.
In Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F.Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the court
engaged in an intensive analysis of competing benchmarks submitted by the plaintiffs and
the City in the New York City class action stop and frisk litigation. The court credited
the approach of plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Jeffrey Fagan (Columbia Law School) who
examined data on all stops in New York City from 2004 through 2009. Professor Fagan
used a regression technique similar to that detailed in the benchmarks that have been
adopted by the parties in Bailey. Professor Fagan considered the impact of the racial
composition of a district on the likelihood of being stopped, arrested, or issued a citation.
Additional outcomes included gun and other weapon seizures, and contraband seizures.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 23 of 47
24
Professor Fagan controlled for various district characteristics, including age composition,
racial composition, crime complaints, police patrol strength, socioeconomic status,
population, foreign born population, business district status, and time controls. The
benchmarks in this case, as reflected in this Report, use many of the benchmarks credited
by the Floyd court.
B. Summary of the Racial Aspects of the Stop and Frisk Data
We examined data from Q1 and Q2 2014 pedestrian stops. The sample dataset
includes 2,523 total pedestrian stops.6 The median age of a detainee is 29 and 84% of
detainees are male. Figure 1. Blacks account for 72% of those stopped, Whites comprise
20%, and 9% are Latinos. Compared to 2012, Black stop share has increased by 3
percentage points, while the White stop share has decreased by 3 percentage points.
Minorities account for an even higher share of individuals frisked, of which 79%
are Black, 10% Latino and 11% White. The number of stops varies substantially by
district, with the 25th, encompassing Hunting Park and other parts of North Philadelphia,
accounting for the most, with 9%. See Figure 2. As in 2011 and 2012, the fewest
stops are in the 5th
police district which includes Roxborough, accounting for less than
1% of all stops.
Table 1 reports stop, frisk, and arrest rates for pedestrian stops broken down by
race. Approximately 19% of stops of Black and Latino suspects lead to a frisk,
considerably higher than the 10% rate for Whites.
6 As in past reports, we are proceeding on a district-level analysis, rather than at the “sector” (“PSA”) level, due to the fact that not all of the control variables were made available at the PSA level. District level analysis should not materially impact the statistical analysis. We will move to PSA-level analysis as soon as all of the data is available at this level of aggregation.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 24 of 47
25
Blacks and Latinos are also searched at a higher rate than Whites, 6.0% and 6.9%,
respectively versus 4.1%, although the search rate of minorities dropped relative to 2012.
It is possible that the increase in the frisk rate and decline in the search rate is due to
anomalies in police reporting. We have attempted to identify cases in which police record
a “frisk,” but which under the circumstances was clearly a search (e.g., incident to arrest),
but that process is not perfect and is evolving with the implementation of the new
electronic database.
The 2014 arrest rates were 6.0% for Blacks, 8.8% for Latinos, and 4.9% for
Whites. However, as discussed in previous reports, plaintiffs and the City agree that
arrest rates are not a good measure of the legality of stops and frisks since the decision to
arrest is highly discretionary (e.g., where a person may be acting in a disorderly fashion,
has an open liquor container, or is stopped on suspicion of curfew or truancy violations).
Further, to determine whether the arrest rates are related to improper racial
considerations, a more precise analysis of the reasons for the stops by race would be
necessary.
C. Benchmark Applications
1. Stops, Census and Regression Analysis
The question of whether race is impermissibly used as a factor in the decision to
stop and frisk cannot be answered by a simple comparison of stop and frisk rates to
census data. Non-racial factors may explain the disparities. However, the stop
rate/census comparison is the first step in this process. As set forth in Table 1, the stop
rate by race in comparison to the census is as follows:
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 25 of 47
26
Black stops=72%; Black census=43.4%
White stops=20%; White census=41%
Latino stops=9%; Latino census=12.3%
The next step is a cross-district comparison of stop rates by Black/Minority
population share. A racial disparity in stops should be expected based on differences in
population composition. It is possible to examine variation in the share of Black and
Latino stops by district, as reported in Tables 2A and 2B, respectively. Each row in the
tables represents a district (column 1) and the tables are sorted by the Black or minority
share of the population in the district, as reflected in column 2. The third column reports
the share of stops that are of Black/minority pedestrians and the fourth is the ratio of
Black/minority stops to Black/minority population share. Note that in all districts, Blacks
and minorities account for a higher share of stops than they do in the population; in some
districts, they are stopped at a rate over 5 times their share of the population. Thus, in the
7th
Police District, where the population is 5% Black, 25% of the stops were of Blacks
and in the 9th
District where the population is 11% Black, 69% of the stops were of
Blacks. By contrast, in the 22d Police District, where Blacks make up 89% of the
population, the ratio of stops by race was close to a 1:1 ratio.
The last three columns report characteristics based on the census population of the
district, not just minorities. The fifth column provides a measure of total stops to police
officers (not including higher ranked officers) to measure how stop rates per officer vary
across district by Black/minority population share. There is substantial variation across
districts in the ratio of stops to officers. The correlation between average stops per officer
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 26 of 47
27
and minority stop share is over 0.5, which means that districts where police officers make
more stops also tend to stop a higher share of minorities. Of course, this is only a
correlation and a more precise analysis is provided by the regression analysis set forth
below.
The final two columns in Tables 2A and 2B report total stops per capita and the
violent crime rate in the district (violent crimes per 1,000 residents). The correlation
between stops per capita and the minority share of stops is also approximately 0.5
indicating that minorities constitute a higher fraction of those stopped in districts with a
high stop rate. Again, regression analysis is necessary to determine whether the violent
crime rates in these districts explains the extent of the differences.
To address non-racial influences, we next move to a multivariate regression
analysis. This approach is more robust than a comparison of averages because it
examines the relationship among multiple variables simultaneously. To determine the
impact of suspect race on the likelihood of a stop or frisk, we controlled for factors that
include the demographic makeup and crime rate of the neighborhood.
First, we add data collected from the U.S. Census as well as Uniform Crime
Report data on reported crimes, by district. We begin by examining differences in overall
stop rates by race in Table 3. This table (and tables 4, 7, 8 and 10) share the same
format: each column in the table reports results from a separate regression that identifies
the relationship between the variables listed in the first column and the dependent
variable. For example, regression 2 can be written as:
(1) 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝛽2𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 + 𝛽3𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝜖
Stop Rate is the number of stops in the sample examined per 10,000 residents in a district
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 27 of 47
28
and Black is coded 0 if the detainee is White and 1 if the detainee is Black. Similarly,
Hispanic is coded 1 if the detainee is Latino and zero otherwise. Age is the detainee’s age
in years. By including 3 variables in the equation, this regression can better isolate the
impact of race and Latino identity on the likelihood of being stopped, even if age is an
important factor in stop rate. The coefficient on Black found in column 2 is 11.31, which
means that in the sample about 11.3 more Black individuals were stopped than White
individuals for every 10,000 residents of a district. The standard errors are reported in
parentheses below the coefficient and the double stars on the standard error indicates that
this result is statistically significant at better than the 1% level. This means that there is
less than a 1% chance that the difference in stop rates between Blacks and Whites is zero.
At first blush, 11.3 extra stops per 10,000 residents, out of more than 200,000
annual stops in Philadelphia, may not seem significant. The 2010 Census counted
1,526,006 residents of Philadelphia, so this would translate to a difference of 1,724 stops
city-wide in the first two quarters of 2014. But these numbers are from the randomly
selected sample of all stops. In order to determine the total difference we must adjust for
the share of overall stops included in the sample. The total number of pedestrian stops in
the first half of 2014 was approximately 107,000 and, therefore, the expected disparity in
annual stops citywide is approximately 73,600 or 34% of the total annual stops.
There may be reasons other than race that minorities are stopped at higher rates.
For example, if minorities tend to be younger on average, since more crime is committed
by younger individuals, one might expect a higher stop rate for minorities. We controlled
for this factor (as in equation 1 above) and others relevant to this issue. Column 2 in
Table 3 controls for detainee age and adds Latino identity. Column 3 controls for the
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 28 of 47
29
district racial composition as well as the share of the male population under 24 years of
age. Even after adding these controls, the coefficient on Detainee Black (8.482) is still
similar to what it was with no controls. The 4th
column includes a control for whether
flash information led to the stop, which does not have a statistically significant influence
on the stop rate. Column 5 adds the district racial composition as well as employment rate
to the regression. Since poor economic conditions are associated with higher crime,
higher stop rates could be explained by low employment rates, but here the impact is not
statistically significant.
The final four columns add different controls for district crime rates. The crime
rates are based on crimes reported to the police (not arrests) in 2013. It is preferable to
use lagged crime because current crime levels could be influenced by policing policies.
In each case, districts with higher crime rates have more stops, but controlling for crime
rates does not affect the influence of detainee race on stop rate.
Another potential explanation for higher stop rates of minorities is that they
commit crimes at higher rates. Addressing this concern raises several challenges. First,
we do not have accurate data as to crime rates by race. There is arrest data, but even if
arrest data was an accurate measure of crime rates by race, an issue we discuss below, we
would need this breakdown on a district by district (or sector by sector) basis to engage in
the proper statistical analysis, and this information was not available.
Second, there is a methodological problem: arrest rates are not independent of
stop rates; that is, they are not an unbiased measure of crime. Higher stop rates of one
group will almost certainly lead to higher arrest rates. Thus, as we explained in Plaintiffs’
Third and Fourth Reports to the Court, patterns of police enforcement have far more to
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 29 of 47
30
say about the racial breakdown of persons arrested for drugs than actual drug use or
possession by race. This is not to say that arrest rates are solely a function of
enforcement, but that the measure is almost certainly a function of stop rates.
Third, there is a legal problem with using crime rates by race to explain disparities
in stop rates: as a matter of Equal Protection doctrine, race is an impermissible factor to
use when making stops, absent a racial description of a suspect. Thus, even if
race-specific crime rates were available, it may not make sense to use them as controls in
the regressions. See, Floyd v. City of New York, supra. Even in high crime areas, the
commission of crimes is by relatively few persons and therefore it is problematic to
justify higher rates of stops in these communities based on a kind of group-actuarial
basis.
Table 4 is analogous to Table 3, but it reports the results of a regression of the rate
of pedestrian frisks (rather than stops) on detainee race and various controls. In each
regression, the coefficient on Detainee Black is statistically significantly different from
zero and ranges from about 0.075 – 0.095. This regression shows that the frisk rate for
Black detainees is 7.5– 9.5 percentage points higher than for Whites. Since the pedestrian
frisk rate for Whites is 9.7%, this translates to an increased likelihood of 75% to almost
100% that Black detainees are frisked, relative to Whites. Including the control variables,
such as age, district demographic variables, or crime rates, makes the result even more
robust.
2. Reasonable Suspicion for Stops and Frisks: Racial Analysis
As the Plaintiffs’ previous Reports and Section II of this Report demonstrate, a
substantial number of the pedestrian stops do not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 30 of 47
31
For the first six months of 2014, 37% of the stops were made without reasonable
suspicion (see Table 5). While an improvement of 6 percentage points from 2013, this
rate of stops without reasonable suspicion is unacceptably high. Further, while we
found that the share of frisks without reasonable suspicion declined from 55% in 2012 to
52% in 2014 (see Table 6), that rate is also far too high.
To inform the Fourteenth Amendment analysis we considered whether the number
of stops lacking reasonable suspicion varied by race or Latino identity. Table 5 shows
significant variation by race in the share of stops lacking reasonable suspicion, which
ranged from 32% for Whites to 39% for Blacks to 41% for Latinos. There is a 29%
higher unfounded stop rate for Latinos and 21% higher for Blacks relative to Whites.
The impact of detainee race on unfounded stop rates is explored in more detail below, by
using regression analysis. There is also variation by race in unfounded frisk rates, see
Table 6, with 50% of frisks of Blacks, 64% of Latinos and 60% of Whites lacking
reasonable suspicion. However, regression analysis reveals that these differences are not
statistically significant, largely due to the small sample size.
On the issue of race and reasonable suspicion for pedestrian stops, each column in
Table 7 reports the results from a separate regression. In each regression the variable of
interest is Detainee Black and various control variables are added in the different
columns. In most of the columns the coefficient on Detainee Black is between -.05 and
-.08 indicating that reasonable suspicion was found in 5 to 8 percentage points fewer
cases when the detainee was black, and these differences are statistically significant.
Thus, while the overall rate of unfounded stops is high for Whites at 32%, the unfounded
rate is higher for Blacks, even when controlling for an array of potentially relevant
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 31 of 47
32
characteristics. This means that the disparity in unfounded stops cannot be explained by
differences in district demographics, crime rates, economic conditions, or other control
variables, and thus strongly suggests that race is the underlying reason for the disparities.
Table 8 is similar to Table 7 and describes regressions about the rate of reasonable
suspicion, but now for a frisk rather than a stop. The coefficient on Detainee Black ranges
from about .06 to .09, but none of these coefficients are statistically significant. Overall
there is little evidence that there are significant disparities in the rates of unfounded
frisks, although this is largely due to the less precise estimates due to the smaller sample
size. This holds true when examining Latino identity as well, where the results are
statistically indistinguishable from Whites in this and the other regression analyses.
3. Hit-Rate Analysis
An important measure of the propriety of stops and particularly of frisks is the
rate at which they lead to the discovery of contraband, and particularly weapons, since
frisks are permitted only where the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is armed
and dangerous. Moreover, seizures of weapons are often cited as justification for a robust
stop and frisk program. The rates of discovery of contraband from frisks are reported in
Table 9. Contraband is categorized as firearms, other weapons, drugs, or other. “Other” is
not included in the table as it is a less significant event, consisting either of small
amounts of cash or unspecified materials.
Table 9 reports an overall detection rate for firearms that is extremely low, with fewer
than 1 in 200 pedestrian frisks yielding a firearm. There were a few other weapons
discovered as well, but they raise the overall rate of detection of weapons to only 0.92%.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 32 of 47
33
Table 9 reports results of a basic hit-rate analysis by race and Latino identity (with
no control variables). None of the frisks of Whites in the sample yielded firearms and
only 1 of the 47 frisks yielded other weapons. By comparison 0.58% of frisks of Blacks
yielded firearms (a total of 2) and 0.29% yielded other weapons (1 other weapon).
Table 10 is a more sophisticated approach to the firearms hit-rate analysis. The
regressions report the rate of discovery of a firearm in pedestrian frisks. None of the
coefficients on Detainee Black or Detainee Hispanic are statistically significant, but this
is likely due to the fact that firearms are very rarely discovered.
Drugs were detected in about 1 in 60 frisks. By racial category, drugs were
discovered in 1.75% of frisks of Black pedestrians, 2.13% of Whites, and in no frisks of
Latinos. Thus, there does not appear to be any evidence from frisk results to suggest
that minorities possess drugs more frequently than Whites; indeed, the data points in the
opposite direction. Further, although suspicion of drug activity may be grounds for a stop,
a frisk may not be undertaken in a search for drugs and many of the “stops” for
narcotics-related conduct that are recorded by police are actually arrests based on
probable cause (e.g., observed drug transactions).
4. Marijuana Arrests
In previous Reports to the Court, plaintiffs have analyzed arrest data to determine
whether there were racial disparities in cases involving small amounts of marijuana.
The data from 2011, 2012 and 2013 were strikingly similar, showing that for these
arrests, Blacks and Latinos accounted for over 90% of those charged. As we have
previously asserted, these rates are not explainable by patterns of use or possession of
marijuana as all reliable data shows that Blacks and Whites use and possess marijuana at
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 33 of 47
34
approximately the same rate.
Philadelphia City Council recently found that “minorities are disproportionately
impacted by the enforcement of marijuana laws, with African Americans 5.19 times more
likely to be arrested for [possession of marijuana] in Philadelphia than Caucasians despite
evidence showing nearly identical use across both communities.”1 City Council enacted
an Ordinance which provides that possession of under 30 grams of marijuana is to be
treated as a Civil Code Violation punishable by a small fine and, in most circumstances,
the offender is not subject to arrest and prosecution. Mayor Nutter signed the Ordinance,
effective as of October 20, 2014. In light of this significant development, we have agreed
with the City to postpone further review of the data on police enforcement of this
Ordinance pending implementation of new protocols. The City will provide data on
marijuana arrests and Civil Code Violations for the period February-April, 2015 and we
will analyze the data in Plaintiffs’ Sixth Report.
5. Commentary
We have examined the relationship of race to stop and frisk practices from multiple
perspectives, following standard statistical theories. It is significant that on the key
benchmarks that provide the most reliable measures of racial bias—regression analysis,
comparisons of stops without reasonable suspicion by race, and hit rate analysis—there is
strong evidence that the large difference in stop and frisk rates by race in Philadelphia are
not explained by non-racial factors. To the contrary, the data show statistically
significant racial disparities that are not fully explainable by non-racial factors.
1 Philadelphia Code, Chapter 10-2100.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 34 of 47
35
Figure 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fre
que
ncy
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Age
Distribution of Stops by Age
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 35 of 47
36
Figure 2
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 36 of 47
Table 1
Number of Stops Stop Share Number of Frisks Frisk Share Stops with Frisks Stops with Searches Stops with Arrests
Black 1,803 71.5% 342 79.4% 19.4% 6.0% 6.0%
Latino 222 8.8% 42 9.7% 19.4% 6.9% 8.8%
White 498 19.7% 47 10.9% 9.7% 4.1% 4.9%
STOPS, FRISKS, SEARCHES AND ARRESTS BY RACE, PEDESTRIAN STOPS
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 37 of 47
38
Table 2A
District
Black
Population
Share
Black
Stop
Share
Black Stop
Share/Black
Population
Share
Total Stops/
Officer
Total Stops
per capita
Violent
Crimes per
1,000
population
22 89% 93% 1.0 81 0.29 2319 85% 96% 1.1 60 0.12 1112 84% 92% 1.1 53 0.13 1616 80% 97% 1.2 70 0.26 17
39 79% 96% 1.2 60 0.14 1514 77% 96% 1.2 91 0.15 1035 73% 90% 1.2 68 0.11 1318 64% 98% 1.5 76 0.15 1217 60% 89% 1.5 90 0.26 1325 34% 57% 1.7 103 0.29 211 34% 71% 2.1 80 0.20 82 26% 63% 2.4 64 0.08 7
26 25% 38% 1.5 76 0.20 1524 23% 24% 1.0 102 0.24 1815 22% 57% 2.6 58 0.08 116 21% 67% 3.3 80 0.27 148 12% 31% 2.7 35 0.03 39 11% 69% 6.2 95 0.24 83 10% 37% 3.5 61 0.13 95 5% 26% 5.1 20 0.04 3
7 5% 25% 5.5 29 0.03 3
District Level Analysis - Black Stops
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 38 of 47
39
Table 2B
District
Minority
Population
Share
Minority
Stop
Share
Minority Stop
Share/Minority
Population
Share
Total Stops/
Officer
Total Stops
per capita
Violent
Crimes per
1,000
population
22 91% 93% 1.0 82 0.30 23
12 89% 91% 1.0 53 0.14 1619 86% 97% 1.1 60 0.12 1116 85% 98% 1.2 70 0.26 1735 85% 93% 1.1 69 0.12 1339 81% 97% 1.2 60 0.14 1514 79% 96% 1.2 91 0.15 1018 73% 98% 1.3 76 0.15 1217 69% 90% 1.3 91 0.27 1325 51% 87% 1.7 105 0.29 211 46% 69% 1.5 82 0.20 82 44% 71% 1.6 66 0.08 7
26 38% 64% 1.7 78 0.20 1524 36% 53% 1.5 102 0.24 18
6 35% 71% 2.0 81 0.27 143 31% 41% 1.3 66 0.14 9
15 29% 67% 2.3 58 0.08 119 23% 72% 3.1 97 0.24 88 19% 32% 1.7 37 0.03 37 19% 30% 1.6 30 0.03 35 9% 24% 2.7 22 0.05 3
District Level Analysis - Minority Stops
* Minority is defined as Black or Latino (or both)
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 39 of 47
40
Table 3
VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Detainee Black 9.924 11.31 8.482 11.20 8.689 7.429 7.931 7.390(2.801)** (2.744)** (3.312)* (2.713)** (3.278)* (3.159)* (3.131)* (3.174)*
Detainee Hispanic 9.239 12.76 -1.080 12.90 0.387 -4.435 -2.295 -4.626(8.696) (8.444) (12.63) (8.346) (12.54) (12.08) (11.96) (12.15)
Detainee Age 0.568 0.352 0.557 0.304 0.0189 0.101 0.0161(0.257)* (0.288) (0.254)* (0.287) (0.302) (0.288) (0.305)
District Asian share 24.19 34.82 26.49 30.88 26.03(35.29) (35.79) (34.13) (34.02) (34.27)
District Black share 13.83 13.53 8.567 3.378 9.787(7.966) (7.880) (7.805) (8.840) (7.692)
District Hispanic share 25.85 20.47 13.46 4.378 15.52(15.33) (15.68) (15.20) (16.66) (15.09)
Male population under 24 -24.78 -66.83 -39.89 -48.87 -39.38(20.84) (37.68) (37.78) (36.72) (38.06)
Flash Information -14.60(10.59)
Employment Rate -55.36 -48.22 -32.38 -51.58(41.54) (39.49) (40.84) (39.52)
Overall Crime Rate 0.0139(0.00636)*
Violent Crime Rate 0.0830(0.0386)*
Property Crime Rate 0.0159(0.00747)*
Constant 3.288 -16.59 -7.484 -14.07 31.34 25.86 19.55 27.31(2.487) (9.297) (11.54) (9.369) (31.28) (29.75) (30.19) (29.79)
Observations 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42R-squared 0.263 0.347 0.408 0.379 0.439 0.511 0.510 0.508
Pedestrian Stops
Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 40 of 47
41
Table 4
VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Detainee Black 0.0933 0.0902 0.0799 0.0854 0.0777 0.0779 0.0777 0.0780
(0.0185)** (0.0184)** (0.0206)** (0.0179)** (0.0206)** (0.0207)** (0.0207)** (0.0207)**
Detainee Hispanic 0.0961 0.0893 0.0365 0.0755 0.0365 0.0370 0.0362 0.0372
(0.0271)** (0.0270)** (0.0282) (0.0262)** (0.0282) (0.0283) (0.0282) (0.0283)
Detainee Age -0.00345 -0.00336 -0.00295 -0.00328 -0.00325 -0.00329 -0.00325
(0.000579)** (0.000578)** (0.000564)** (0.000579)** (0.000582)** (0.000581)** (0.000582)**
District Asian share 0.374 0.0926 0.110 0.0793 0.116
(0.272) (0.298) (0.301) (0.300) (0.301)
District Black share 0.101 0.0915 0.0951 0.0828 0.0948
(0.0618) (0.0619) (0.0627) (0.0666) (0.0623)
District Hispanic share 0.275 0.314 0.318 0.302 0.317
(0.0810)** (0.0826)** (0.0833)** (0.0891)** (0.0829)**
Male population under 24 0.173 0.728 0.682 0.764 0.666
(0.144) (0.278)** (0.303)* (0.296)** (0.304)*
Flash Information 0.264
(0.0217)**
Employment Rate 0.724 0.686 0.785 0.682
(0.310)* (0.325)* (0.354)* (0.321)*
Overall Crime Rate -0.000167
(0.000443)
Violent Crime Rate 0.000977
(0.00278)
Property Crime Rate -0.000261
(0.000516)
Constant 0.0982 0.215 0.0505 0.168 -0.425 -0.389 -0.468 -0.380
(0.0165)** (0.0255)** (0.0492) (0.0251)** (0.209)* (0.230) (0.242) (0.228)
Observations 2,461 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456
R-squared 0.011 0.025 0.042 0.081 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044
Pedestrian Frisks
Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 41 of 47
42
Table 5
Table 6
# % # % # % # %
Yes 1,579 62.6% 1109 61.5% 131 59.0% 339 68.1%
No 944 37.4% 694 38.5% 91 41.0% 159 31.9%
REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR PEDESTRIAN STOP BY RACE
All Black WhiteLatino
# % # % # % # %
Yes 205 47.6% 171 50.0% 15 35.7% 19 40.4%
No 226 52.4% 171 50.0% 27 64.3% 28 59.6%
LatinoAll Black White
REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR PEDESTRIAN FRISK BY RACE
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 42 of 47
43
Table 7
VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Detainee Black -0.0558 -0.0524 -0.0716 -0.0522 -0.0747 -0.0746 -0.0747 -0.0745
(0.0234)* (0.0234)* (0.0263)** (0.0234)* (0.0263)** (0.0264)** (0.0263)** (0.0264)**
Detainee Hispanic -0.0571 -0.0501 -0.0170 -0.0493 -0.0169 -0.0166 -0.0172 -0.0164
(0.0343) (0.0343) (0.0361) (0.0343) (0.0361) (0.0361) (0.0361) (0.0361)
Detainee Age 0.00293 0.00282 0.00290 0.00294 0.00295 0.00292 0.00296
(0.000736)** (0.000739)** (0.000738)** (0.000740)** (0.000743)** (0.000742)** (0.000743)**
District Asian share 0.345 -0.0487 -0.0389 -0.0608 -0.0343
(0.348) (0.379) (0.383) (0.382) (0.383)
District Black share 0.119 0.105 0.107 0.0971 0.107
(0.0791) (0.0792) (0.0801) (0.0851) (0.0796)
District Hispanic share -0.0227 0.0320 0.0343 0.0208 0.0339
(0.103) (0.105) (0.106) (0.114) (0.106)
Male pop. under 24 -0.329 0.458 0.432 0.491 0.420
(0.183) (0.354) (0.386) (0.376) (0.386)
Flash Information -0.0159
(0.0283)
Employment Rate 1.023 1.001 1.080 0.997
(0.394)** (0.413)* (0.449)* (0.408)*
Overall Crime Rate -9.71e-06
(5.64e-05)
Violent Crime Rate 9.29e-05
(0.000354)
Property Crime Rate -1.64e-05
(6.58e-05)
Constant 0.672 0.573 0.640 0.576 -0.0325 -0.0115 -0.0728 -0.00417
(0.0209)** (0.0324)** (0.0625)** (0.0328)** (0.266) (0.293) (0.307) (0.289)
Observations 2,519 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514
R-squared 0.002 0.009 0.014 0.009 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
Reasonable Suspicion for Pedestrian Stop
Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 43 of 47
44
Table 8
VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Detainee Black 0.0861 0.0810 0.0670 0.0755 0.0626 0.0633 0.0716 0.0615
(0.0698) (0.0705) (0.0756) (0.0706) (0.0757) (0.0767) (0.0764) (0.0767)
Detainee Hispanic -0.0734 -0.0762 -0.00997 -0.0850 -0.00906 -0.00898 -0.00584 -0.00914
(0.0846) (0.0849) (0.0870) (0.0851) (0.0869) (0.0871) (0.0870) (0.0870)
Detainee Age -0.00109 -0.00118 -0.00100 -0.00116 -0.00116 -0.00107 -0.00117
(0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00208) (0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00209)
District Asian share 0.793 0.101 0.0869 -0.0654 0.123
(0.870) (1.036) (1.063) (1.054) (1.064)
District Black share -0.0311 -0.0646 -0.0655 -0.128 -0.0643
(0.192) (0.194) (0.195) (0.207) (0.195)
District Hispanic share -0.375 -0.323 -0.321 -0.374 -0.327
(0.244) (0.248) (0.249) (0.255) (0.252)
Male population under 24 0.218 1.273 1.305 1.700 1.225
(0.512) (1.001) (1.128) (1.114) (1.125)
Flash Information 0.0685
(0.0519)
Employment Rate 1.305 1.344 2.184 1.252
(1.063) (1.248) (1.466) (1.208)
Overall Crime Rate 1.11e-05
(0.000183)
Violent Crime Rate 0.000985
(0.00113)
Property Crime Rate -1.99e-05
(0.000213)
Constant 0.417 0.453 0.413 0.435 -0.444 -0.476 -1.039 -0.397
(0.0662)**(0.0963)** (0.178)* (0.0973)** (0.721) (0.899) (0.993) (0.876)
Observations 431 431 431 431 431 431 431 431
R-squared 0.011 0.012 0.035 0.016 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.038
Reasonable Suspicion for Pedestrian Frisk
Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 44 of 47
45
Table 9
All Black Latino White
Firearms 0.46% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00%
Other Weapons 0.46% 0.29% 0.00% 2.13%
Drugs 1.62% 1.75% 0.00% 2.13%
Any 5.10% 5.84% 0.00% 4.26%
DISCOVERY OF CONTRABAND BY RACE, PEDESTRIAN FRISKS
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 45 of 47
46
Table 10
VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Detainee Black 0.00490 0.00394 0.00437 0.00451 0.00411 0.00373 0.00345 0.00380
(0.00954) (0.00964) (0.0104) (0.00966) (0.0105) (0.0106) (0.0106) (0.0106)
Detainee Hispanic -0.00219 -0.00272 -0.000969 -0.00182 -0.000915 -0.000959 -0.00115 -0.000937
(0.0116) (0.0116) (0.0120) (0.0116) (0.0120) (0.0120) (0.0120) (0.0120)
Detainee Age -0.000201 -0.000191 -0.000210 -0.000190 -0.000193 -0.000197 -0.000192
(0.000285) (0.000288) (0.000286) (0.000288) (0.000289) (0.000289) (0.000289)
District Asian share 0.133 0.0921 0.0998 0.104 0.0983
(0.120) (0.143) (0.147) (0.146) (0.147)
District Black share -0.00516 -0.00713 -0.00664 -0.00245 -0.00704
(0.0266) (0.0268) (0.0270) (0.0287) (0.0269)
District Hispanic share -0.0122 -0.00915 -0.0100 -0.00536 -0.0103
(0.0337) (0.0342) (0.0345) (0.0352) (0.0348)
Male pop. under 24 0.0453 0.107 0.0901 0.0755 0.0937
(0.0707) (0.138) (0.156) (0.154) (0.155)
Flash Information -0.00701
(0.00710)
Employment Rate 0.0765 0.0550 0.0113 0.0615
(0.147) (0.172) (0.203) (0.167)
Overall Crime Rate -6.01e-05
(0.000253)
Violent Crime Rate -0.000730
(0.00156)
Property Crime Rate -5.60e-05
(0.000295)
Constant 0.00103 0.00777 -0.0130 0.00968 -0.0633 -0.0456 -0.0192 -0.0502
(0.00906) (0.0132) (0.0246) (0.0133) (0.0996) (0.124) (0.137) (0.121)
Observations 431 431 431 431 431 431 431 431
R-squared 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.005 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Firearm Recovered
Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 46 of 47
47
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David Rudovsky, Esquire
/s/ Paul Messing, Esquire
Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, LLP
718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 925-4400
/s/ Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire
ACLU of Pennsylvania
PO Box 40008
Philadelphia, PA 19106
/s/ Seth Kreimer, Esquire
University of Pennsylvania Law School
3900 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Counsel for Plaintiffs7
7 Counsel express their appreciation to a number of volunteer lawyers and law students who have donated
hundreds of hours of time in this project. Special thanks to Jon Dilks who organized and structured the data
collection and student reviews.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 47 of 47
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mahari Bailey, et al., Plaintiffs C.A. No. 10-5952
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al., Defendants
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND CONSENT DECREE
I. Introduction
A. Plaintiffs' Claims
This class action was filed on Novem ber 4, 2010, and alleges that practices related to stops, frisks,
searches, and detentions by the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") violate the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions by (1) depriving class members of their rights to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution where stops, frisks, or searches are made without the requisite reasonable suspicion or
probable cause, and (2) denying class members the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution where stops, detentions, frisks or searches are
impermissibly conducted on the basis of race or ethnic origin. Plaintiffs' claims are based on the facts
alleged by the individual named plaintiffs, data analyzed during the course of the litigation in NAACP v.
City of Philadelphia, C.A. No. 96-6045 (E.D. Pa.), and PPD data regarding stops and frisks in Philadelphia
for the years 2005-2009. Plaintiffs allege that the constitutional violations are systemic and result from
the failure of the PPD to properly train, supervise and discipline police officers with respect to these
practices. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the City has as a matter of policy Increased the number of
stop and frisks in Philadelphia, but has failed to properly monitor, audit or supervise these practices Since
the termination of the NAACP case in 2005, notwithstanding assurances that the City would continue to
monitor and supervise these practices.
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 9
B. The City's Response
The City of Philadelphia acknowledges that there has been an increase in the number of persons stopped
and frisked by the PPD in the period 2008-2010, but denies all allegations regarding systemic violation of
the rights of class members under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments or the Pennsylvania
Constitution, and the City further denies the legal and factual claims made by the plaintiffs. The City
asserts that PPD training on and supervision of stop and frisk practices is fully consistent with
constitutional standards and that there have not been violations of the constitutional rights of the
members of the plaintiff class. Specifically, the City asserts that its practices and procedures related to
stops, frisks, searches and detentions by the PPD are fully consistent with constitutional standards and
are made with the requisite reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause. In addition, the City denies that
the stops, frisks, searches and detentions are, in any way, conducted on the basis or racial or ethnic
origin in violation of individuals' constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the City, without admission of any
legal or factual claims made by the plaintiffs, agrees that there are appropriate measures that should be
implemented as a matter of City policy and practice to ensure that stops and frisks by the PPD are
conducted consistent with constitutional mandates.
C. Mutual Recognition of Principles
All parties to this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree recognize the need for (1) diligent law
enforcement in the City of Philadelphia, (2) the proper use and implementation of stop and frisk practices
and policies as instrumental in legitimate police practices, and (3) compliance with the requirements and
mandates of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and to Article I,
Sections 1 and 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed to the following binding provisions of this Settlement
Agreement, Class Certiflcation and Consent Decree ("Agreement'1.
2
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 9
II. Preliminary Discovery, Review of Current Stop and Frisk Practices, and Data Analysis
A. The City has agreed to provide the plaintiffs the following documents and data regarding stop and
frisk practices of the PPD:
1. 75-48a forms for the PPD for selected two week periods in the years 2006-2010.
2. PPD directives and related instructional and training materials governing stop and frisk policies and
practices, including information as to codes entered on the 75-48a forms.
3. Audits, reports, and data analysis prepared by or for the PPD for the period 2006 to the present
regarding stop and frisk practices and policies, including reports and audits prepared by Tern pie
University and the University of Pennsylvania.
4. PPD Compstat and Research and Planning data for the years 2006-2010 regarding (a) arrests, (b)
reported crime, and (c) seizures of contraband (guns and/or drugs) pursuant to stops and frisks.
5. Data regarding deployment of PPD officers by district and unit for the years 2006-2010.
6. The parties have also agreed to discuss other disclosures that may be appropriate for proper
assessment and monitoring of stop and frisk practices by the PPD.
B. The parties have agreed not to litigate the constitutionality of past stop and frisk practices, and they
enter into this Agreement to implement measures to ensure future compliance with constitutional
standards. The parties reserve the right to review and analyze 75-48a forms for the years 2006-2010.
C. No later than January 1, 2012, the PPD will begin entering all new 75-48a forms into an electronic
data base that provides the parties with access to digitized information that is sufficient to enable the
parties to conduct electronic data analysis with respect to legality of the stops and frisks. The data base
shall have the capability to retrieve information by DC number, district, date, race, officer's actions, and
other relevant characteristics necessary to effective monitoring of stop and frisk practices. To ensure that
this data base provides the necessary information regarding stops and frisks, the parties will confer on
the need for any changes to the 75-48a form and the design and structure of the electronic data base,
including the nature and scope of the information to be entered. If there are any unresolved differences
between the parties as to this process, the Court shall have the authority to enter an appropriate Order.
3
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 9
Further, the City shall train PPD officers with respect to the electronic data base system and their
responsibilities to record the relevant information for each stop and frisk.
D. The Plaintiffs and the City will review current PPD training, supervision, and discipline policies to
determine whether any changes are necessary or appropriate to ensure that stops are conducted only
where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and that frisks are made only where there is
reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and dangerous. Where appropriate, new
directives, regulations or other policy statements will be issued by the PPD, or ordered by the Court
pursuant to Sections IV(E) and (F).
E. Stops and frisks shall not be permissible, without limitation, where the officer has only anonymous
Information of criminal conduct, or because the person is only "loitering" or engaged in "furtive
movements," or is acting "suspiciously," or for the purpose of "investigation of person," or on the basis of
non-articulated "flash information," or only because the person is in a "high crime" or "high drug" area.
These restrictions are not exclusive and the parties agree that stops and frisks shall not be made without
the requisite reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution.
F. The City agrees to implement policies and practices to ensure that stops and frisks are not conducted
on the basis of the race or ethnic origin of the suspect, except where the law permits race or ethnic origin
to be considered in determining whether a person shall be stopped or frisked (e.g., where a suspect has
been described by his race).
G. By January 1, 2012 the City shall establish and enforce policies and procedures governing supervisory
review and audits on agreed upon periodic basis of stop and frisk practices that include (1) review by
police district or unit supervisors of selected 75-48a forms to determine whether they state legal grounds
for a stop or frisk, (2) reviews and audits by PPD supervisory officials of relevant data to determine
whether there are impermissible racial disparities in stops and frisks, (3) the establishment of triggering
thresholds for re-training, enhanced supervision, or discipline of officers who engage in unconstitutional
stops and frisks or who violate PPD policies or procedures governing these practices, and (4) department
wide audits and assessments of stop and frisk practices that include PPD stop and frisk documents,
4
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 9
civilian complaints, internal complaints, use of force forms and data, community surveys, and other
relevant PPD data or documentation. There shall be written documentation of all re-training, enhanced
supervision, or discipline of officers who are reviewed under the triggering thresholds. These reviews and
audits shall be made available to the parties, Monitor, and the Court.
Ill. Class Certification
The parties agree to the following Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P.:
All persons, including pedestrians and operators or passengers in motor vehicles, who were or will be stopped, frisked, detained and/or searched by Philadelphia police officers on or after November 4, 2008 without legal justification as required by the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution, or on legally impermissible considerations of race or national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.c. §2000(d).
IV. Monitoring and Compliance
A. By June 21, 2011, the Court shall appoint a Monitor after considering the recommendation(s) of the
parties. The Monitor shall have the authority to recommend to the parties and to the Court practices,
poliCies and other measures that are appropriate or necessary to ensure that PPD stop and frisk practices
and policies are in compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Pennsylvania
Constitution. The Monitor shall be provided with all relevant and necessary information, data analysis, and
documents and may conduct an independent analysis and review of stop and frisk practices as a basis
for the Monitor's Reports and Recommendations. The Monitor may seek the advice and assistance of
police practices and statistical experts in the formulation of reports or recom mendations to the parties
and the Court. The Court retains the power to ensure that the Monitor is provided with all necessary and
relevant information and documents.
B. For the period of time preceding full implementation of the electronic data base of 7S-48a information,
see Section lI(C), on a quarterly basis the City shall provide to the plaintiffs, the Monitor, and the Court
relevant data regarding stops and frisks, including the information and documents listed in Section Il(A).
In this regard, the City shall provide all 7S-48a forms that are part of the City's audits of stop and frisk
5
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 of 9
practices (under the supervision of Police Department Inspectors), as well as other relevant forms and
data.
C. Upon implementation of the 75-48a electronic data base, the digitized information in this data base
shall be provided to plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor on a monthly basis.
D. The parties shall analyze and review this data and documentation under agreed upon benchmarks for
measuring compliance with Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania constitutional standards
and, on a semi-annual basis, shall submit their reports and recommendations to the Monitor and the
Court. The benchmarks shall include, but need not be limited to, those developed by the parties in
NAACP v. City of Philadelphia.
E. The City shall implement policies, practices and other measures that the parties agree will foster PPD
compliance with constitutional standards. If the parties disagree on such practices and policies, they shall
separately set forth their positions in a Report to the Monitor. The Monitor shall discuss the matter with
the parties and, if agreement is not reached between the parties, shall issue a formal Report and
Recommendation. The recommendations shall be implemented unless a party objects by filing Objections
with the Court.
F. Upon the filing of such Objections, the Court shall determine whether the recommendations are
appropriately designed to ensure that stop and frisk practices are consistent with constitutional
standards. The Court has the authority under this Agreement to order specific policies, practices and/or
other measures that are necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.
G. Upon a showing of non-compliance with its Orders or of a pattern of violations of the constitutional
rights of the plaintiff class, the Court shall have the power to issue contem pt or other sanctions.
H. In determining whether the City is in compliance with constitutional standards with respect to stop
and frisk policies and practices, the Monitor and the Court may consider among other factors, (1) the
number and nature of stops and frisks that do not comply with constitutional standards under the Fourth
Amendment or Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) all information regarding the reasons provided for stops
and frisks, the resultant "hit-rates," including arrest data, seizures of eVidence, and information resulting
6
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 of 9
from audits and surveys conducted by the parties, (3) racial disparities in stop and frisk practices under
appropriate criteria and benchmarks and under professionally established statistical protocols and
analysis. Non-compliance under the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution may be found
where there are a significant number of unconstitutional stops and/or frisks. Non-compliance under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution may be found where the evidence proves that
there are significant racial disparities in stop and frisk practices that are not explained by non-racial
factors for such disparities, including but not limited to crime rates, suspect-descriptions in stop and frisk
cases, police deployment patterns, or other non-racial factors.
V. Fees a nd Costs
A. The City shall be responsible for reasonable costs and fees of the Monitor.
B. The City shall pay counsel fees and costs to the plaintiffs' attorneys David Rudovsky, Paul Messing,
Mary Catherine Roper (ACLU of Pennsylvania), and Seth Kreimer, and their expert, Professor David
Abrams on an agreed upon hourly basis and subject to an agreed upon annual cap for time spent to date
and for all time spent in the monitoring phase of the litigation. Counsel shall submit invoices for their
time and costs on a semi-annual basis. Any disputes over fees and costs shall be adjudicated by the
Court.
e. Plaintiffs agree to waive fees for work done in the investigation and negotiation of the individual
damage claims of the named plaintiffs.
VI. Miscellaneous
A. The parties shall attempt to negotiate the individual claims of the named plaintiffs. The Court shall
have the authority to resolve these claims by mediation or trial.
B. Members of the plaintiff class may sue for damages for alleged stop and frisk violations and any such
claims shall be considered "related" for purposes of Local Rule, Civ. P. 40.1{c)(1), or other later cognate
rules.
e. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the Court, upon motion of a party, determines that the
provisions regarding data disclosure and analysis, document production, Monitor Reports and
7
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 7 of 9
Recommendations, and Court review are no longer necessary to ensure that the PPD stop and frisk
policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards.
D. Reports and recommendations of the parties and the Monitor and any Orders of the Court shall be
filed of public record with the Court. All filings will redact personal Information regarding persons subject
to stop and frisks and the parties agree to keep information regarding the identities of persons stopped or
frisked confidential.
E. Neither this Agreement nor any act taken in furtherance of this Agreement by the City or any City
officials or employees is or may be deemed an admission or evidence of the validity of any claims made
by the plaintiffs in the Complaint in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
F. The Monitor shall not be retained by any party to this litigation in a claim or suit against the
defendants, or any of their officers, employees, or agents. The Monitor shall not testify on behalf of any
party in any new claim or suit against the defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, but may
testify in this action on issues relating to the Monitor's duties or responsibilities. The Monitor shall notify
the defendants upon receipt of a subpoena and/or request for documents and materials that relate to the
Monitor's duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.
8
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 8 of 9
It is so agreed.
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
s/ David Rudovsky David Rudovsky, Esquire
sl Paul Messing Paul Messing, Esquire Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, LLP 718 Arch Street, Suite 501S Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-4400
sl Mary Catherine Roper Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire ACLU of Pennsylvania P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, PA 19106
s/ Seth Kreimer Seth Kreimer, Esquire University of Pennsylvania Law School 3900 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104
Counsel for Defendants:
s/ Shelley R. Smith Shelley R. Smith, City Solicitor
s/ Craig M. Straw Craig M. Straw, Chief Deputy City Solicitor Law Department 1515 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19102
s/ Carlton L. Johnson Archer & Greiner, P.e. One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103
Approved by the Court:
~~4 United States District Judge
U....,.,- 21" Z,d(f
9
Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 9 of 9