How is Racial Profiling Proved?

Racial profiling is defined by the ACLU as "any police or private security practice in which a person is treated as a suspect because of his race, ethnicity, nationality or religion... instead of evidence of a person's criminal behavior."

Now, let us take a multiple choice quiz.  Under what circumstances are allegations of racial profiling proved?  Is it:

a) when a single police officer complains that he is followed and a surveillance device is placed on his vehicle

b) when a single police officer has the above complaints, and a black book is alleged to be used to differentially investigate certain officers

c) when the single officer complains, the black book is used, and discussion of these circumstances magnifies among members of the same group within the department

d) when the single officer complains, the black book is used, and discussion magnifies within and outside the department

e) when investigatory resources are directed toward members of a certain group at a higher rate than the overall population without justification.

The answer to the above question, of course, is (e).  The keys to the answer are the words "rate" and "justification".

The rate of investigation of black police officers unjustifiably investigated should not be higher than the rate among the overall population of police officers.  It is all a matter of numerators and denominators. The numerator here is the number of officers investigated for legitimate cause, and the denominator is the entire group investigated.

In the case of the recent Greensboro Police Department fiasco, we would therefore need to know the number of African American officers reasonably targeted for investigation; the overall population of African American officers investigated; the number of total police officers reasonably targeted for investigation; and the overall population of police officers investigated.

It would take quite a research project to arrive at these ratios, and I somehow doubt that this has been done as of yet.  But this is the only way to demonstrate objectively whether racial profiling has taken place.  We cannot make this assessment based on mere complaints, murmurs, or outcries.

There is a certain burden of proof that must be met in civil and criminal actions.  The burden of proof in a civil action is whether a preponderance of evidence exists-- a probability greater than 50%-- that the action is illegal.  In criminal actions, the burden of proof is that guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is unclear whether civil or criminal actions will arise from the police department scandal, but these are the standards of proof that would be required to obtain a ruling in court.

In high profile criminal cases, we often hear that circumstantial or hearsay evidence is insufficient to justify a conviction.  Yet based on what the public knows at this point regarding the police department matter, this is the only type of evidence we apparently have -- circumstantial and hearsay.

Certainly, we have suspicious alleged factors to consider-- a cover-up of evidence, misleading of superiors, and several people retiring or resigning under duress.  These could all be evidence of guilt.  But they could be evidence of other factors as well.

These individuals could have perceived that they were going to be the objects of a witch hunt in which they stood no chance.   They may have wanted to preserve their retirement benefits.   They may have been asked to prove a negative-- to prove that they were not profiling.  It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative-- and that is why the justice system is organized around the aforementioned burdens of proof that accusers must meet.

The individuals under investigation-- the two special investigations officials and former Chief Wray-- undoubtedly knew the legal/political environment in which police must navigate the issue of profiling.  They also likely knew the circumstances of local politics, in which a center/left governing consensus exists, and a premium is placed on racial politics.  They may have felt they would never stand a chance in such an environment.

In my post two days ago, I made reference to the principle that police departments need to be able to monitor their own employees, particularly when these employees have been previously accused of wrongdoing.  I mentioned the strident tone that was struck during the press conference given by Lt. Hinson and attorney Joe Williams. 

And I thought to myself-- where had I previously heard the name Joe Williams?  In my stack of clippings, I found a News and Record article dated October 19, 2005 written by Margaret Moffett Banks.  The article was prepared shortly after Melvin Alston's defeat in the statewide NAACP election.  Ms. Banks interviewed a number of political compatriots of  Mr. Alston to get their opinion regarding how this would affect Alston's influence locally.  Alston, of course, is the slippery local politician whose stock sometimes seems to rise in direct proportion to the amount of racial enmity and division he creates.

A local attorney named Joe Williams was among those interviewed.  Mr. Williams indicated that Alst0n would remain a powerful political figure-- "as long as he leads the Simkins PAC... the political action committee is Alston's real power base" according to Ms. Banks.  Williams said, "Here in Guilford County, as long as the PAC holds prominence, there is going to be a power base for him."

Joe Williams, of course, is Lt. Hinson's attorney (unless we have two attorneys named Joe Williams in town).

And, of course, the PAC holds considerable sway over City Council elections, and indirectly over the City Manager's office.

Mr. Alston was quoted in this morning's paper.  He indicated that the existence of the black book confirms long-held fears that African American males are targeted by police.   "It's proof that it's nothing new, but it's sad that it's still happening," Alston said, in statements that are problematic in a number of ways.

Based on what we know, an entire range of possibilities still exist with respect to what occurred at the Greensboro Police Department.

Comments

[Brenda Bowers]

Dr. Guarino, I have been out all evening so just now logged in and it is 11:10 pm. Don’t know when you posted this entry but am very surprised at the lack of comments. Was it posted just moments ago? Or, have you hit upon the one truth about Greensboro race relations, and that of the entire country for that matter, that no one is willing to touch, but you apparently. You have gone out on as limb all by yourself sir and dared to methodically and logically call a Black man a liar, and an inflammatory liar at that. Oh you did it very nicely and never used the word, but you did in fact destroy his claim of racism. Now if you will remember I did this last night with my emphatic avowal that ex-Chief Wray was not a racist, but that was as far as I felt I could go. You are a person whom many people respect and so you can say what many of us can not. Really, I have that right too I believe, but no one out there knows it. You see, I know what Mr. King was all about and I know because I was there when Mississippi was supposely “burning”! I was dragged, beaten and jailed for the equal rights of ALL peoples. I was there when Mr. King said, “I have a dream.” His dream was not for Blacks or Whites or Yellows, his dream was for All people. I am sicken to my soul every time the 'race' card is played indiscriminately and unjustly because I know as sure as I am alive that someday it will backfire, and Mr. King’s dream will die. And, the awful part about this is that it is the Blacks whom I walked beside in their struggle who are destroying the dream themselves. I’m not stupid or inexperienced, I am well aware that there are still some racist out there. But the vast majority of us want all peoples to have an equal chance at a decent life and be respected for who they are not what color or religion or sex they are. And for this to ever happen the Blacks will have to learn not to cry "race" unless it is truly the case. They will have to learn that racism cuts both ways and that it is now they who are becoming the racists.

We were all so young and idealistic and sure someday we would see the day when the color of a man’s skin would not be used as a reason to lynch him in fact, or metaphorically. I feel rather sure that I am seeing just that now.

[David Boyd]

I wonder how folks who are being critical at this early stage without access to facts want investigations of black officers to be handled? When a woman makes a complaint that she's been abused by a black Greensboro police officer, who she doesn't know, what should the procedure be?

[Joe Guarino]

Brenda, I appreciate your comments once again. I want to emphasize, however, that I have not called anyone a liar. The truth is a bit too murky at this point.

And David, you raise a good question. Lorraine Ahearn's front page story today provides much more detail, but there are still unanswered questions. It appears that at least part of the basis for suspecting Hinson was the fact that he had leased and later sold a home to a drug kingpin. There may be other issues that were not identified by the article.

I would want the police to continue to monitor closely any police officer who houses and conducts business transactions with drug kingpins-- regardless of the explanation the police officer may have, and regardless of whether insufficient evidence is available to prove his guilt or complicity.

[Sandy Carmany]

Dr. Guarino,

I am apalled and deeply offended by your allegation of the PAC's influence on this investigation -- it is totally off-base!

While the city attorney's office was in charge of the initial probe, they immediately sought the services of an independent agency when evidence was uncovered there was indeed "fire" behind all the "smoke." The use of an unbiased third party (RMA) was the best way to proceed to keep the politics and any perception of cronyism out of the investigative process. RMA is highly regarded in law enforcement circles, headed by a highly respected retired former SBI agent. I must stress INDEPENDENT, PROFESSIONAL, HIGHLY RESPECTED, and OUT OF TOWN.

I am handicapped and frustrated that I cannot reveal all that councilmembers know that could put an end to a lot of all this ridiculous speculation. Please remember that only a small fraction of the findings has been publicly revealed. You're basing your conclusions only on "the tip of the iceberg" that you have seen, and it's understandable how you (and many others)are drawing erroneous conclusions based on that small, limited amount of information.

There is documented evidence and testimony provided by WHITE OFFICERS and other law enforcement agencies -- state and federal -- of MANY MORE incidents involving other GPD officers -- black and white -- that point to systematic discrimination and intimidation. In my opinion, this is clearly not a case of the complaining officers trying to use the "race card."

The kind of behavior that was uncovered is just plain wrong, no matter your race or politics -- I can guarantee YOU would be complaining if these things had happened to you!

[Dale E. Sperling]

Chief Wray atated he kept the black book as an investigative tool while looking into allegations of fondling committed by a black police officer.
I don't know the legal definition of racial profiling nor do I know the people involved in Greensboro politics. I do know something about solving a crime. One would start with the time and location of the alleged incident and could temporarily eliminate all those officers not on duty at the time of occurence. Using log in and dispatch records, the department would know who was in what general area at the time the incident occured.
By matching the physical discription given by the victim to those officers not eliminated, one could narrow the list of suspects to a very few if not just one.
I photo lineup of six to ten people (a lega; line-up) should confirm his identity.
Having a little black book with everyone's photo in it is not standard procedure.
I have no knowledge of who the alleged victim is and under what circumstances it occurred, but I have interviewed many of the city's street people and many have told me about being taken advantage of by police officers.
In the vast majority of these claims, two names are most often repeated. And yes, one of these officers is black. The other is not.

[Sandy Carmany]

There's no concern whatsoever about the legitimate ORIGINAL use of the "black book" to give the woman lodging the complaint an opportunity to identify the officer who she said inappropriately touched her. It's standard police procedure to assemble photos of persons fitting the general description of the suspect -- in this particular complaint, described as a black police officer -- and allowing the victim to look at them in hopes of identifying the person. But once that is done, the book should be dismantled or placed into an evidence file. Unfortunately, that was not the disposition of that "black book" in this case, and it has been verified that it was used again in unrelated and inappropriate ways. If it had been used in the initial investigation ONLY, there would have been absolutely no problem.

Chief Wray would have known this. Therefore, his actions in denying its very existence and having it hidden tells me he knew there was a problem with it. If appropriate protocols had been followed, there would have been no reason to hide anything.

[David Hoggard]

Joe,

I know of your emnity towards the PAC, but your attrempt to "connect the dots" here is lacking.

Joe Williams has long been the 'go to guy' in town high profile defense efforts - especially within the black community. If I were to become the victim of what I condiered to be discrimination - Williams would get my retainer for sure.

While I, too, think that Commissioner Alston's proclamation that what-we-know-so-far revelations about the GPD are anything but "proof" of institutional racism, the smoke of the simmering racial fire is at least detectible.

And while Alston's statement of "proof" is not helpful here, neither is your circumstantial linking of Joe Williams, Alston and city government influence peddling as being a part of some sort of conspiracy helpful.

You, too, are lacking proof.

Otherwise, this is another excellent analysis - keep them coming.

[Brenda Bowers]

Have you read Allen Johnson's blog "Thinking Out Loud" today? It is an interesting comment by two Black men, one the writer and one submitting the letter for public view on his blog site and thus commenting.

Dr. Guarino, I am sorry to have offended you with the word "liar" that was just my own analysis using the points you made, and I assumned it was also yours. From the rest of my comment you can understand how disappointed and disillusioned I am at what has happened to what was a noble cause. A cause I so much believed in and worked for even though I was distressing my parents and alienting what I had known as good friends and neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Inevitably, details of the report have leaked out in some circles, and when the public finally finds out everything, as Sandy said, it will probably end this "ridiculous speculation." It's also going to make a lot of people's boldly proclaimed opinions look pretty stupid, so if you don't know what you're talking about it would probably be better not to publicize your thoughts until you figure out what's really going on. At least online, because the internet is forever.

The jury's still out on whether or not Wray's actions were race-related, but the rampant and breathless online and real-life conversations going on around this town have already inadvertently revealed that racism lives and thrives in the hearts of many. What's that saying? "Better to keep quiet and have people speculate about you than to open your mouth and confirm the truth for them."

[Joe Guarino]

Sandy and David, I was very careful in the way I wrote this post to be sure that I was not making any type of allegation regarding the PAC and Alston. I do not know any of these people, and I only know limited facts. I was merely pointing out a confluence of circumstances that may or may not be coincidental. And Sandy, I cannot help but believe that the initial decision to go after Wray was not at least partially based on political considerations.

And Sandy and Dale, no matter what folks' conception may be as to what a proper or improper use of the black book might be, and what people say, if we employ a rigorous definition of racial profiling, and measure it against what we know has occurred, our public understanding as of this moment does not support the premise that racial profiling has occurred.

If what police officers have been saying on this matter is tainted or contaminated by their dissatisfaction over other issues, their statements may be less valid. I keep thinking about the fact that they were willing to trade off the racial investigation to get their straight work shifts back. And Sandy, if you are right, then the city is potentially facing enormous liabilities.

[Sue]

Thanks to Sandy for adding what I've suspected: there's more, and we don't (yet) know it. That's what I've been telling Duncan Black (Atrios/Eschaton) and Pam (Durham blogger) so they don't villify Greensboro without the facts.

I don't know why the facts aren't being shared unless there's an agreement not to share them (pending what, a lawsuit or criminal proceeding?) or there's a legal reason not to open them up (legal personnel policy can be infuriating but has a greater societal purpose).

Until and unless the facts are available, we're ALL speculating and we should not stop. We should talk this through, talk about race relations, talk about targeting people based on race or gender or sexual preference, and stir the pot until the slimy murky sludge rises to the light of day. (what a set of metaphors!)

Joe is entitled to his opinion and his suspicion of the PAC, which is no more innocent than most other political action committees. Politics is an ugly business, like making sausage. It taints most who touch it.

I appreciate Allen Johnson's forthright editorial and the doggedness with which the N&R is pursuing the story. Again, I don't know Chief Wray and just don't want to believe he's the devil incarnate, so I won't, until the facts are there for me to assimilate and come to my own conclusions.

One thing we probably can agree on: this is BAD for Greensboro. Mitchell Johnson has been superb in taking decisive action and for the moment, I'm going to trust my leadership and tap my fingers on the virtual table until all the information is able to be inspected by all points of view.

[Cara Michele]

Joe, I've tried to stay out of this whole mess, but after reading what Laurie posted on her blog (http://slowlysheturned.blogspot.com/2006/01/way-to-go-sandy.html) I realized that it's important to take a public stand sometimes. In my opinion, your posts about the Wray matter are becoming increasingly offensive, particularly those about Lt. Hinson. You have moved from speculation to insinuation and allegation, and I fail to see how it's helpful to anyone. I hope that you'll consider the effects of your words on others as you continue to post and comment. Peace, CM

[Sandy Carmany]

Dr. Guarino,

One of the more dangerous assumptions is your statement about "the initial decision to go after Wray." I had not heard any city council members express any dissatisfaction with Chief Wray or voice any issues with him until the allegations of wrongdoing surfaced with the hidden tracking device incident. Thus, I am not aware of any political motivation to go after him -- he was well-liked.

The investigation was begun to look into complaints about questionable practices and perceived unfair treatment IN THE DEPARTMENT, not to go specifically after the Chief. When it first began, no one knew for sure "who was doing what" and "who knew what" -- it was entirely POSSIBLE that lower-ranking officers were "out of control" and Chief didn't know about their actions (still would have been a problem, but potentially not as severe). However, his misstatements and cover-up attempts during the course of the investigation blazed a trail right to his door.

You are also assuming that only officers who were dissatisfied with the Chief's rotating shifts and/or felt targeted by the questionable actions were complaining and/or providing evidence and testimony -- NOT SO! There were numerous credible people -- both inside the department in a variety of ranks as well as from OUTSIDE state and federal law enforcement agencies -- who were not personally affected by the rotating shifts or questionable actions and had nothing to gain, but refused to turn a blind eye and provided valuable testimony.

The one thing I do agree with you is that the city is potentially facing enormous legal liabilities (although we have been told that our decisive action in investigating and acting on these problems has significantly reduced that possibility).

[Joe Guarino]

Sandy-- Think about the Nixon cover-up. He was not involved in the initial activities, but he was involved in the cover-up. But in that case, the original crime was, in fact, a crime.

In this case, Lt. Hinson had housed and done business with a drug kingpin. He claims he did not know-- fine. He discovered he was being monitored and apparently objected, feeling it was inappropriate. He apparently felt an entitlement not to be monitored, and alleged it was because of his race. But he serves in a public safety position, in which the interests of the public must be served. Wray was correct to monitor him, and that should have been evident to anyone looking at the issue who knew the history. If Hinson was not doing anything wrong, he had little to worry about.

This was the initial event that exploded the matter into the public consciousness. But once it did, it became apparent to discerning observers that Wray had a huge problem, regardless of the merits.

So we had a justifiable monitoring situation that was challenged inappropriately, an officer was suspended (not terminated)-- WITH PAY-- and Wray becomes the focus of concerns. Meanwhile, his employees are rebelling because of the rotating shifts, and offered to trade off the racial investigation to get their stable shifts.

And you are right, Sandy, it could have been officers beneath him out of control.

Sandy, I think it all gets back to the issue of numerators and denominators. We need a comprehensive analysis numerically as I outlined above to determine whether the allegations of racial profiling are true. So regardless of the putatively credible people giving testimony, after considering the Hinson situation, I wonder how much of this is hokum, and based on erroneous perceptions. But I hope that further information will clarify the situation.

Michele, I am sorry if you were offended. That was not my intention. I do not know enough to make any kind of allegations. I am merely thinking through this systematically and attempting to provide possible explanations to a situation that runneth over with illogic. I have never once dismissed outright the possibility that the allegations of racial profiling are true. Raising questions is an appropriate exercise for bloggers, however. And I don't feel we should necessarily be bound by what are considered to be the politically acceptable bounds of discourse.

With respect to the anonymous commenter, I can only say that I have attached my name to the statements I have made, and have emphasized how much we do not know. I stand behind these statements; and I hope that the actions taken by the city are justified in view of all that has transpired.

[Sandy Carmany]

The problem with Hinson being tracked is that this was done AFTER he had been totally cleared of those allegations, in both criminal and administrative investigations conducted by the department.

In addition, the police chief had been directly instructed by the District Attorney if any further investigations of Hinson were warranted, they should be conducted by the SBI. Why was this directive ignored and not reported to the city manager?

The Chief outright lied to YOU, the public, during his June press conference when he publicly stated those previous investigations were in progress when they had actually been concluded 1-2 years ago.

Do you not have a problem with this?

[Joe Guarino]

Does the DA have direct authority over the police chief? I don't know the answer to that question, but my understanding was that the police chief reports to the City Manager.

I do have a problem with the premise that he may have made misleading comments, and I stated that at the outset of my previous post. At that point, those he may have perceived to be sharks had already detected blood in the water, and were beginning to circle, but that does not exculpate misleading statements if they were made. Unfortunately, it is hard to know what to believe.

I had previously addressed the concept of Hinson being "cleared". I do not think it is unreasonable to continue monitoring him, in view of the circumstances, even though there was insufficient evidence against him previously. Again, he is a public safety worker, and a higher degree of care is warranted on behalf of the public. The safety of the public is the police department's primary function.

[Spirit]

Joe, two things. first, I think you are grasping at straws to try to justify Hinson's monitoring. The bottom line is YOU DON'T REAlLY KNOW WHY HE WAS BEING MONITORED. None of us do.

And secondly, for the health of Greensboro, I would trust the process more than you are. Sandy (not part of the Simpson PAC, last time I looked) and others are cofortable with the process that is unfolding. Idle speculation in the blogs is just adding inflammation to the the already sore joint.

[Joe Guarino]

Spirit, I appreciate your comments. Based on yesterday's article in the News and Record, I would not necessarily characterize concerns over the housing of drug kingpins as "grasping at straws." I think that's fairly, well, big.

And I am doing my best to trust the process.

[Brenda Bowers]

I have only lived in Greensboro for 16 months and haven’t yet found a good reason to “trust” Greensboro officialdom I am so sorry to say. I don’t think I have ever witnessed so much mismanagement in any of the many places that I have lived during my adulthood. I dearly love this city, but the officials are as inept as they come. Even the News and Record which is usually 100% behind the official explanations for events is questioning this debacle. No sir, I do not thrust those who operate the system in Greensboro. And, neither do I believe that we will ever get the truth from them unless we in our unrest and continued questioning force it from them.