And the survey says: Though only 2.4 percent of Reno’s drivers are black, about 4.2 of Reno drivers pulled over by police are black. Despite this, dark-skinned drivers receive fewer citations and more warnings. They are arrested at a higher rate and searched more often—though they are less likely to be found possessing contraband.
The study, a report on traffic stops conducted in 2002, is not news. The controversy has been covered. Reno police have said the study is flawed.
“The way the state did the study is invalid,” Reno Police Chief Jerry Hoover told RN&R reporter Miranda Jesch in February.
For a minute or two, the debate landed smack in the middle of the 2003 Nevada Legislature. Sen. Joe Neal sponsored SB 20, a bill that would have made racial profiling by a police officer a misdemeanor.
Hoover called Neal’s bill an “idiotic, knee-jerk response.”
“If racial profiling were made illegal, it would put our community and our officers in jeopardy,” Hoover said.
The bill was indefinitely postponed back in February. But, don’t worry, said the legislators who killed the bill. We’ll at least track the problem, police chiefs in Las Vegas and in Reno agreed. A couple of months later, the Reno Police Department backed out, citing costs of $40,000 as too expensive for the dough-strapped department.
“What a creepy message it sends to the people of Nevada,” says Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada in Las Vegas. “The Reno Police Department not only isn’t going to do anything, but they say now in the wake of the study—while others admit there’s a problem—that there’s no problem at all. The rights of black and brown people aren’t important enough to spend $40,000 to do a study.”
That’s why dozens of Reno citizens from all walks of life signed up to speak to the Reno City Council about reviving a study tracking traffic stops and arrests made by the Reno Police Department.
“There were a lot of angry people at the hearing and with a good reason,” said Laura Mijanovich of the ACLU. “The Reno police cannot make a promise and then break it and not expect people to lose confidence and become angry at them.”
Tom Stoneburner of the Alliance for Workers’ Rights told the city council that before change can take place, the issue needs to be assessed.
“You can’t manage what you can’t measure,” he said. “We have a yardstick here, a tool to fix this very important matter.”
Mijanovich said that abandoning the effort is short-sighted.
“Racial profiling wastes the valuable time of officers, and that is expensive,” Mijanovich said. “[It] invites lawsuits and alienates the community.”
When Eugene Lockhart addressed the council, he first thanked the council for allowing him time to speak. Then he traded his eyeglasses for dark sunglasses to demonstrate how he viewed the attitude of the Police Department.
“The police stated that this exists, which we already knew,” he began. “And then shortly thereafter, the department backed up …” He took a step away from the microphone and crossed his arms. “… And they said, ‘That’s right. We bad. What are you going to do about it?’”
He removed his sunglasses and tucked them away.
“That was the wrong thing to say,” he said. “You can’t be the biggest gangster in the city and try to fight gangs.”
The council voted to add the issue to its June 11 agenda.
Assistant Chief of Police Jim Weston said he had no information on the issue for the RN&R. He said the police department would be making a presentation at the council meeting.