Imagine driving to work, running late for an important meeting. You are driving the posted speed limit, obeying all traffic laws, and you car is in perfect working order. All of a sudden, flashing red and blue lights are behind you and you’re being pulled over. The officer treats you as a suspect right off the bat, smothering you with questions concerning what you’re doing, where you’re going; yet never really telling you why you’ve been pulled over. Without any warranted reason the officer wants to search your car. After much hassle you are finally free to go, yet still have no explanation as to why you were pulled over to begin with. Now imagine you are black and the officer is white. You have probably just experienced racial profiling. Racial profiling is a problem which is gaining widespread notoriety in the United States. It may be the most important homeland issue we face today. Racial profiling is a clear violation of the civil rights of United States citizens. Not only does racial profiling affect civilians, but it actually makes law enforcement ineffective. Most efforts to investigate and eradicate racial profiling have failed due to unclear findings and a lack of accountability on the part of law enforcement. New measures must be taken in conjunction with current measures to curb racial profiling. A stringent federal program to monitor and survey our nation’s police officers is needed. The public also needs to become more involved in efforts to stop racial profiling. Until these measures are taken, racial profiling will continue to eat away at the heart of our nation. Racial profiling is one of the most important civil rights issues facing our country today. Not only does racial profiling affect the direct victims, it negatively affects all people of color, in all generations, of all levels of economic standing. The integrity and accountability of law enforcement agencies is lost due to racial profiling. This integrity is lost in the communities that need effective law enforcement the most, making it close to impossible for police officers to do their jobs. Racial profiling can be defined as “any police-initiated action that that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity” (Ramirez, 13). When referring to traffic stops, racial profiling should be defined as an officers use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop, question, search or arrest someone. There are two types of racial profiling, hard and soft. “Hard profiling uses race as the only factor in assessing criminal suspiciousness” (MacDonald, 132). A good example of hard profiling would be an officer seeing a black person and, without more to go on, pulling him over for a search assuming he may be carrying drugs or weapons. “Soft profiling is using race as one factor among others in gauging criminal suspiciousness” (MacDonald, 132). For instance, imagine police had information that a Latino gang, which drives red Hondas, was running drugs along the freeway. A police officer sees a Latino driving above the speed limit in a red Honda, and pulls him over in hopes of finding drugs. This would be a fine example of soft profiling. Racial profiling can also be stretched to include characteristics associated with minority or gang related behavior. Peter Noel points out in his Village Voice article that “a baseball cap, worn at an angle, accounts for 10% of stops. A red or blue bandanna accounts for 20% of stops. Large hooded sweatshirts account for 10 percent of stops” (Noel, 42). The majority of racial profiling instances occur on the freeway. Police officers are pulling over a disproportionate number of minority drivers in order to look for drugs and other contraband. Even if the driver commits a traffic infraction, the reason the officer pulls him over, as opposed to countless other speeders, is his race. This is considered by many to be racism, and a violation of civil rights. Racial profiling has been monitored in many jurisdictions, and in most cases has been found to be a significant problem. “A 1996 study in Maryland found that while African Americans accounted for only 16.9% of the drivers on I-95, they constituted 72.9% of the drivers stopped and searched by the Maryland State police” (Ramirez, 132). Numbers such as these are very alarming, and hard to ignore. Such an unbalanced average can only point to racial profiling. In a survey conducted along state highways in Pennsylvania over a period of a week, results showed that “African Americans accounted for 79% of all traffic stops” (ACLU). Racial profiling affects law-abiding citizens as well as offenders. Innocent people of minority ethnic backgrounds are stopped, questioned and searched for reasons that would not lead to the interrogation of a white driver. Minorities report stops based on minor equipment violations such as items hanging from the rear view mirror, and even stops followed by inquiries such as, “whose car is this you’re driving?” or “what are you doing in this neighborhood?” Racial profiling not only violates the civil rights of entire communities in the name of criminal justice, but it is an ineffective crime prevention tool that ultimately victimizes the people it is supposed to be protecting, the non-criminal public. “In a society dedicated to the ideal of equal justice under the law, forcing one group of citizens to put up with disparate treatment because of the color of their skin is positively abhorrent” claims an editorial in the Cincinnati Post (A Chance To Move On). Racial profiling is often practiced in areas that need a strong police presence the very most. For police work to run its smoothest and most effectively, their must be trust between the civilians and the police officers. The widespread perception among minorities that they are unfairly targeted by the police because of their race has led to a lack of trust in the police. This mistrust harms both the police and minority communities, by making police work more difficult. Minority communities need effective policing because minorities are much more likely to be victims of violent crime. They need the protection offered by effective police work, and the police want to do their job well. Mistrust of the police makes this goal all but impossible because it makes people less likely to cooperate with the police by reporting crimes and aiding police investigations. In a personal interview Ben Jordan, an African-American, stated that “I have experienced unfair treatment by police, and I have learned to not trust them or cooperate with them” (Jordan, Ben). Due to these kinds of circumstances, both the public and police lose a lot. The investigation and abolishing of racial profiling serves both the interests of the police and the citizens. Racial profiling is not only discrimination against minorities, it is also a very poor and ineffective method of policing. A common justification for racial profiling in police stops and searches is that it makes sense to stop and search minorities in greater numbers, because they are more likely to be guilty of drug offenses. The reality of the situation is that minorities are arrested for drug offenses in connection with traffic stops at a high rate because they are targeted at a high rate, not because they are more likely than whites to have drugs in their possession. Studies have shown that even when minorities are searched at higher rates, they are no more likely than whites to be carrying illegal drugs. Reports have actually found minorities are often less likely to be carrying illegal drugs than white people. For example, a nationwide study of racial percentages relating to arrests found that: The percentage of searches in which contraband was found was the same for black and white drivers: 28%. Washington’s attorney general reported that in 1999 the “hit rates”, or percentage of searches in which contraband was found, for motorists stopped by the State Patrol were 10.5% for white drivers and 13.5% black drivers. New York’s attorney general reported that in “stop ‘n’ frisk” incidents in 1998 and 1999, the arrest rates were 12.6% for whites, 11.3% for Latinos, and 10.5% for blacks. In 1998 the U.S. customs service reported similar numbers for stops and searches in airports nationwide. Their hit rates were 6.7% for whites, 6.3% for blacks, and 2.8% for Latinos. (Murakami, A3) Numbers such as these would more accurately point to white people as the worthy recipients of racial profiling, when the truth is that no one deserves such treatment. While many studies find that racial profiling is a problem, there are almost as many studies that come back with results that seem to indicate racial profiling is a myth. The testimony of victims should be proof enough that these studies are flawed. So what is it that is making this data come back flawed? Most of these numbers are the results of surveys or questionnaires that are given to police officers. The questions are directly related to race. Officers are asked questions such as “did you know the race of the person before stopping them?” or “did race play a role in this incident?” A task force on racial profiling in Seattle said “the question would give officers an easy way out by saying they did not know the driver’s race” (Davila, A3). Questions such as these leave things clearly in control of the officer. Most police officers are not going to admit to racism. In a personal interview, police officer Rick French stated “not many of my fellow police officers would be willing to imply racism on their behalf or the behalf of their fellow officers” (French, Rick). Some people say that the reason studies come back with inaccurate and unreliable results is due to confusion over what should be measured and how it should be applied in studies. There are not easy answers to these questions, as evidenced in this article from Time Magazine: Should we take the percentage of traffic stops for a certain racial group and hold it against that groups percentage in the population? Or should it be the percentage of stops vs. the actual driving presence if that group in the area where the stops were made? If we are talking about the percentage of people arrested for a certain crime, can we consider, the rate at which others of their race have been picked up for that crime in the past, or is that data always tainted by the racism of the cops who arrested them? (Cloud, 23) The best way to handle these data collection techniques is with simple questioning and simple analysis. It must be remembered that the citizens are not on trial here, but the actions of our law enforcement agencies. Many questionnaires ask for the officers badge number. Questions such as these lead to even more fear on the part of the police officer, fear of consequences. What sane person would voluntarily put their job and reputation on the line? Due to these circumstances, the results of these tests cannot always be trusted. Until someone is playing watchdog, evaluating these officers statements, they carry little weight. While sometimes flawed, data collection legislation is the first step in abolishing racial profiling. So far, eleven states have enacted legislation addressing racial profiling: California, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington. Since these states took action, legislators in another thirteen states have introduced bills dealing with racial profiling. The strongest of these policies require mandatory, indefinite data collection by all state and local law enforcement agencies. While this is a start, there are many other steps that need to be taken to end racial profiling. The first step in dealing with racial profiling is for law enforcement agencies to collect data on the race of all the drivers they stop, as well as information about the circumstances of the stop. Data collection is necessary for identifying the problem, and giving direction in attempts to stop racial profiling on the part of individual officers and entire agencies. Data collection should not be viewed as a study. Studies often lead to delays in truly dealing with the problem at hand. Data collection should be looked at as a way of dealing with the problem. Ongoing monitoring and measuring of police performance is needed to ensure effective police work and to protect the civil rights of the public. Measuring performance and outcomes is already an established element of running most programs and businesses. Law enforcement should be no different. Racial profiling is an important issue that involves civil rights. It must be treated accordingly. Data collection cannot be voluntary. A voluntary program would be ineffective and place the lives of minorities into the hands of individual agencies that may feel it is in their best interests not to evaluate the problem. Agencies that have something to hide or are not committed to civil rights would not participate in the program. Also, voluntary, locally run programs would collect information in a different manner from other areas, making comparison and analysis close to impossible. The federal government needs to organize and implement this program. “In this instance we believe federal intervention is necessary. It brings, if not an absolute assurance that promises will be kept, the next best thing, a stable, respected, established mechanism for enforcement” (A Chance to Move On). Data collected in this program should include the location, date and time of the stop. The race, age and gender of the person pulled over should also be recorded. Also included in the data should be the reason for the stop, and any data relating to a search, including the grounds for the search and results of the search. Data collection should be used as a monitoring tool for protecting civil rights and ensuring ongoing achievement of law enforcement goals. It is not just a tool for measuring the magnitude of the problem at one point in time. These data collection practices must be kept in place indefinitely. Racial profiling is a serious civil rights violation, and an obstacle to the relationship between the police and the public. Racial profiling is not a matter to be taken lightly or that requires a short-term solution. “Data collected in cities around the country indicate that racial profiling is a widespread civil rights violation, one that warrants ongoing monitoring of law enforcement agencies” (Center For Policy Alternatives). These federal surveys and data collection techniques should become regular protocol. Data collection by the federal government would ensure that local agencies are not covering their own tracks, to avoid the embarrassment and scandal of documented racial profiling. While the data collection would be collected in a written format under this program, there would also be random verbal interrogations. These sessions would be conducted by federal officers, trained in the art of deception, and with a good background in the police field. Having these officers present would go a long way in assessing the validity of claims made by police officers. Officers found to be lying or inconsistent in their answers would be dealt with accordingly. Technology has given us many new ways of monitoring almost anything. Most citizens deal with the reality of being possibly taped and documented anywhere they are, except in the privacy of their own homes. Many offices now have hidden cameras keeping watch over the actions of their employees. Police work should be no different. If there ever was a job where the importance, violence, and authority involved lend themselves to being accountable for the actions taken, police work is the job. With the now common technology of digital cameras, these devices should be placed inside of all police vehicles, recording the events that unfold twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week. This would take much of the guesswork out of judging racial profiling cases and issues. These cameras would send the images to a mainframe computer in an undisclosed area. This would provide indisputable evidence regarding the nature and circumstances surrounding most all police stops. This evidence would be tamperproof, and beyond the power of deception. Police officers would be held to all new levels of accountability in their work. These cameras would also prove to be very useful in almost every other avenue of police work. From random traffic stops gone wrong to homicide, cameras in all police cars would be an invaluable tool. While much reform is needed within the government and law enforcement agencies, the American public must take action if they truly want racial profiling to disappear. The public must become involved on a grass roots level in working and shaping the government. Those who take no action in their government have no right to complain about their government. Citizens need to be informed when election time rolls around, and vote accordingly. Liberal politicians, often Democrats, have historically been more concerned with issues such as racial profiling. There is never a steadfast rule on which politicians to vote for, and the public must educate themselves individually regarding each election. The public can voice their opinions and concerns regarding racial profiling through the often forgotten methods of protest. Whether it be the preparation and completion of a petition to be sent to various government agencies, or a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, politicians are eventually forced to listen to the voice of the public. What begins as the hard to discern cry of an individual can lead to the all out wailing of the masses, and the powers that be will be forced to listen. Victims of racial profiling should take the same steps mentioned above. Reports should also be made to law enforcement agencies of all racial profiling occurrences. The American Civil Liberties Union has an area on their website for civilians to report instances of racial profiling. Once supplied with the information, they will take the appropriate steps to insure justice is had. In conclusion, racial profiling is an enormous problem, one that threatens to eat away at the soul of our country from the inside out. People cannot be expected to live in a society where law enforcement cannot be trusted. The reasons behind the practice of racial profiling are unjust and impractical. The effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies is spiraling downward, and the lack of trust of police by the public due to racial profiling is certainly not a help. With current measures to abolish racial profiling failing, a new federal program to curtail this disturbing trend must be implemented immediately. The public needs to be become more involved in their government. Until these actions are taken, nothing will change. How awful to live in a world of such irony, where the very people who are supposed to protect us from injustice are those feeding it.