Prohibits law enforcement officers from using bias-based profiling

• Democratic34

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Cordell Cleare says this is needed

The unconstitutional use of race or ethnicity as criteria has become the focus of many civil and human rights groups. The practice is commonly known as "racial profiling." Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and other minority groups have long been victims of biased and unjustified stops by law enforcement officers. This consequently has had a corrosive effect on the relations between police and the minority communities and is of no benefit in reducing crime. In the first three quarters of 2016 (January - September), New Yorkers were stopped by the police 10,171 times. The demographics of those stopped were as follows: 54 percent were black (5;401), 29 percent were Latino (2,944), and 10 percent were white (1,042). Ultimately 76 percent of these stops (7,758) did not result in an arrest and the individual was innocent. These statistics show the racial bias inherent in police stops and this practice's ulti- mate ineffectiveness. This bill expands the traditional definition of racial and ethnic profiling to extend the same protections against bias- based profiling to members of other minority communities that are faced with bias-based profiling based on attributes other than race or ethnic- ity. The issue of racial profiling has gained national attention as courts have recently found law enforcement agencies to be engaging in unconstitutional practices. The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department's practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents. The named plaintiffs in the case David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis represent the thousands of primarily Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been stopped without any cause on the way to work or home from school, in front of their house, or just walking down the street. In a historic ruling on August 12, 2013, following a nine-week trial, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and prac- tice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. Under a new admin- istration, the City agreed to 'drop its appeal and begin the joint reme- dial process ordered by the court. The Floyd case stems from the landmark racial profiling case, Daniels, at al. v. City of New York, et al., which led to the disbanding of the infamous Street Crime Unit and a settlement with the City in 200 3. The Daniel s settlement agreement required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the United States and New York State constitutions and to provide stop-and frisk data to CCR on a quarterly basis from 2003 through 2007. Despite these significant cases, racial profiling is still a practice that is rampantly engaged in by law enforcement agencies across the state. In light of such circumstances, it has become para- mount for New York to address the issue of racial profiling before it further continues to undermine the collaborative relationship between communities of color and New York law enforcement officers. This legis- lation aims to resolve the problem by prohibiting police officers from using racial and ethnic profiling, b establishing policies and proce- dures to collect data on racial and ethnic profiling and by establishing a statewide public data base containing the collected data which will promote law enforcement integrity as well as to promote community support, particularly minority communities, for law enforcement offi- cers.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.