Cassell and Fowler suggest that the CPD stopped fewer pedestrians because officers found it difficult to complete the longer form afterwards, and blames the ACLU for the length of the form. This rushed reasoning is not supported by the facts. The CPD performed fewer stops beginning in December 2015—a month before the extra data collection began. Furthermore, half of the CPD form collects information not required by state law or the CPD-ACLU agreement. The ACLU would prefer that the CPD not collect some of this information—for example, information about people’s schools and employment. If the length of the form were problematic, then the CPD could shorten its form - the majority of it is not dictated by the CPD-ACLU agreement.
In their haste to create a connection between the CPD-ACLU agreement and the homicide rate, the authors also completely overlook an entire category of police activity that is not affected by the agreement: vehicle stops. The article therefore fails to consider the total number of stops in 2016, when the police shifted from stopping pedestrians to making more traffic stops. While pedestrian stops decreased, traffic stops doubled from approximately 86,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2016. This publicly available data was not mentioned, or used in the statistical analysis, in the article.
Before the CPD-ACLU agreement went into effect, the CPD stopped pedestrians at record-high levels and fully half of these stops were unconstitutional. Nothing in the agreement prevents the CPD from making lawful stops, and officers have continued to stop pedestrians.
In the coming years, the CPD will need oversight and reform to improve policing, restore community trust, and increase public safety. The DOJ’s 2017 report exposed failures in the CPD’s supervision, training and oversight of officers, as well as in community policing. It highlighted our City’s dismal clearance rate for murders and other crimes. Another ACLU lawsuit shows that the CPD has been operating without a deployment or workload plan for years. Departments that fail to supervise officers or engage in constitutional policing often suffer in other ways as well.
These kind of reforms often face resistance from entrenched political interests and disgruntled officers, who do not want scrutiny. Reforms provide opportunities for talking heads to air controversial opinions to garner media attention. But the grumbling of a few should not delay us as we move forward: Not only is police reform compatible with public safety, but meaningful oversight of police is the only path to legitimate, effective policing in Chicago.