Bias-Based Policing: A Felony in Some States
Dr. Michael L. Beshears
Individuals typically cannot define exactly what constitutes bias-based policing. Bias-based policing is often misinterpreted as pertaining to just racial profiling. However, bias-based policing not only encompasses race and ethnicity, but it also includes gender, sexual orientation, economic status, religious beliefs, and age.
Simply put, bias-based policing is the intentional practice by an individual law enforcement officer who incorporates prejudicial judgments based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, religious beliefs, or age that are inappropriately applied in the performance of his/her duties.
Bias-based policing includes gender bias, where an officer would not—or would seldom—give a female driver a traffic ticket. Then there are instances in which officers will not ticket another police officer for speeding. Some officers display economic bias, where a person who appears unable to afford a ticket is let off with a warning, while someone else who appears more affluent is ticketed. The same holds true for age, where an older person is not ticketed but a teenager is ticketed.
Efforts to Eliminate Bias-Based Policing
Police agencies are attempting to curtail bias-based policing. For example, Texas passed legislation mandating that every police agency within the state keep statistics on traffic stops. New Jersey has gone as far as making bias-based policing by a law enforcement officer a felony. The New Jersey law created the crime of official deprivation of civil rights in an effort to curtail bias-based policing. The law makes it illegal for a law enforcement officer to use race, color, religion, ethnicity, handicap, gender, age, or sexual orientation to discriminate against any individual.
Minnesota, Kansas, Maryland, and other states have enacted similar legislation that makes bias-based policing illegal and in some instances, a felony. It should be further noted that racial profiling was banned via a Justice Department policy pertaining to federal law enforcement agencies, except in cases that involve identification of possible terrorism suspects. However, it is rare that a federal law enforcement agency would perform traffic stops.
Some may suggest that identification of bias-based policing practices is made more complex by case law. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit investigatory stops as long as the facts and circumstances lead to a reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaged in criminal activity (United States v. Arvizu, 2003).
The language that is often criticized in the ruling is the phrase: “reasonable suspicion.” The argument to be made is that by permitting an officer to stop a vehicle for “any reason” promotes bias-based policing, specifically racial profiling. Of course, a candid look at police stops would also bring about the discussion concerning various other police patrol procedures in relation to bias-based policing like compliance stops, as well as patrol deployment patterns.
Has your department addressed this issue? What kind of training have you received regarding bias-based policing?
About the Author: Dr. Michael L. Beshears since military retirement has acquired over 20 years of teaching experience in the traditional and online teaching environment. Michael has an extensive background and first-hand experience in online pedagogy instruction, as one of the first Internet (online) course developers and instructors. Since 1994, he has instructed 10,000+ online students and mentored numerous colleagues in the skills required to instruct online while promoting student success. Michael is a co-adviser for the Kappa-Kappa Chapter of the Alpha Phi Sigma – Criminal Justice National Honor Society.
Michael has two baccalaureate degrees, one in psychology and another in criminal justice from Drury University. In addition, he has three graduate degrees, one in criminology from Indiana State University and another in health services management from Webster University. Michael also has a Ph.D. in business administration with a specialization in criminal justice from Northcentral University. He is currently an assistant professor of criminal justice at American Military University and is full-time faculty in the School of Security and Global Studies. First Published – In Public Safety with American Military University
