Download this report as a PDF

In 2013, the CPD conducted 100,676 traffic stops. See Exh. 1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois analyzed the underlying IDOT data regarding these stops. We found significant racial disparities in traffic stops, both City-wide and in the police districts that contain the fewest minority residents. We also found significant racial disparities in four kinds of searches conducted during these traffic stops. Specifically, we found:

1. Racial disparities in traffic stops.

• City-wide. The rate of black drivers in the stops (46%) is far higher than the rate of black residents in the city population (32%). See Exh. 2. White and Hispanic drivers are stopped at rates lower than their population.

• In higher-white police districts. In the five police districts where whites are a majority of the resident population, minority motorists are significantly over-stopped. As expressed in ratios of stop rates to population rates, black motorists are over-stopped by ratios ranging from 1.7 to 7.5, and Hispanic motorists are over-stopped by ratios ranging from 1.1 to 2.3. For example, in District #18 (Near North), where the resident population is 76% white, blacks are 9% of the residents and 19% of the traffic stops (yielding an over-stop ratio of 2.1), and Hispanics are 5% of the population and 11% of the stops (yielding an over-stop ratio of 2.3). See Exh. 2. ^[1]

2. Racial disparities in four kinds of searches during traffic stops

• Searches of vehicles by consent (1,390 times). CPD was over four times more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists, compared to white motorists (4.74 and 4.09 times). See Exh. 3. CPD was about twice as likely to find contraband when they searched white motorists, compared to black and Hispanic motorists (2.1 and 1.86 times). See Exh. 4. (The points in this paragraph were part of the ACLU’s August 2014 published report about consent searches of cars throughout Illinois.)

• Searches of vehicles by non-consent (2,421 times). CPD was far more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists compared to white motorists (3.42 and 4.82 times). See Exh. 6. CPD was far more likely to find contraband when they searched white motorists, compared to black and Hispanic motorists (1.76 and 1.51 times). See Exh. 7.

• Searches of drivers by consent (1,597 times). CPD was far more likely to search black and Hispanic drivers compared to white motorists (4.9 and 4.46 times). See Exh. 8. White motorists were slightly less likely than black motorists to be caught with contraband (0.94 times), and were more likely than Hispanic motorists to be caught with contraband (1.34). See Exh. 9.

• Searches of drivers by non-consent (2,668 times). CPD was far more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists compared to white motorists (3.72 and 5.22 times). See Exh. 10. CPD was far more likely to find contraband when they searched white motorists, compared to black and Hispanic motorists (1.65 and 2.70 times). See Exh. 11.

I. Racial disparity in traffic stops

For all analysis of traffic stop rates depending upon the race of the driver, city-wide and by district, see Exh. 2.
A. City-wide
On a City-wide basis, black drivers are over-stopped:

 
B. The nine whitest districts
In all nine of the whitest districts (listed below in descending order of whiteness), black drivers are notably over-stopped. The column on the far right (% black stops / % black residents) states the degree of over-stopping, e.g., “2.06” for Near North means that the black stop rate is a little more than double the black population rate. Note that the rate of over-stopping black motorists in these whiter districts (1.52 to 7.46) is substantially higher than the already high rate of over-stopping black motorists on a city-wide basis (1.42). Specifically:

 
Likewise, Hispanics motorists are over-stopped in all five majority white districts, at rates ranging from 1.1 to 2.3.

II. Racial disparity in four kinds of searches during traffic stops

A. Overview
In 2013, the CPD reported conducting 9,643 searches during traffic stops. For each search, the CPD data identify what was searched (the car, the driver, or the passenger), and the basis for the search (consent or some other basis). The following chart summarizes the number of searches, by type.

 
In all four kinds of searches analyzed in this report, black and Hispanic motorists were significantly more likely to be searched, and white motorists were significantly more likely than Hispanic motorists to be caught with contraband. In three of four kinds of searches, white motorists were significantly more likely than black motorists to be caught with contraband. In the one exception to this pattern (consent searches of drivers), black motorists were only 6% more likely than white motorists to be caught with contraband. This hit-rate pattern generally holds when the different types and amounts of contraband are disaggregated. [2]
B. ​Searches of cars by consent

CPD conducted 1,390 consent searches of vehicles in 2013. See Exh. 3. Other than the ISP, the CPD conducted more vehicle consent searches than any other police agency in Illinois. See IDOT 2013 report at p. 11.

Minority motorists were far more likely to be searched. Specifically, black motorists were 4.74 times more likely than white motorists to be searched, and Hispanic motorists were 4.09 times more likely. The pattern for 2013 mirrors earlier years: from 2004 to 2012, minority motorists were three to seven times more likely than white motorists to be searched. See Exh. 3.

White motorists were far more likely to be caught with contraband, taking all forms of contraband as a whole.  Specifically, white motorists were 2.1 times more likely than black motorists, and 1.86 times more likely than Hispanic motorists, to be caught with contraband. The hit rates were 12% for black motorists, 13% for Hispanic motorists, and 24% for white motorists. From 2007 to 2012, white drivers also were more likely than minority drivers to be caught with contraband, with just one exception (in 2008 the white/black hit rate disparity was 0.98).  See Exh. 4.

When the 179 busts are disaggregated by type and quantity of contraband, the higher white hit rate generally holds. For example, white motorists were more likely to be caught with drugs, including all specific quantities of drugs up to 100 grams. There are a few exceptions to this norm: the only drug bust larger than 100 grams (type and precise amount unreported) involved a black motorist; all seven weapon busts (types unreported) involved black or Hispanic motorists; the only stolen property bust involved a black motorist; and all but one of the 32 alcohol busts involved black or Hispanic motorists. See Exh. 5. ​

C. ​Searches of cars by non-consent
CPD conducted 2,421 non-consent searches of vehicles in 2013. Minority motorists were far more likely to be searched. Specifically, black motorists were 3.42 times more likely than white motorists to be searched, and Hispanic motorists were 4.82 times more likely. The search rates were 3.9% for Hispanic motorists, 2.8% for black motorists, and 0.8% for white motorists. See Exh. 6.

White motorists were far more likely to be caught with contraband, taking all forms of contraband as a whole. Specifically, white motorists were 1.76 times more likely than black motorists, and 1.51 times more likely than Hispanic motorists, to be caught with contraband. The hit rates were 17% for black motorists, 20% for Hispanic motorists, and 30% for white motorists. See Exh. 7.

When the 473 busts are disaggregated, the higher white hit rate generally holds. For example, white motorists were more likely than black and Hispanic motorists to be caught with drugs, more than 100 grams of drugs, and weapons. There are a few exceptions to this norm: all four of the drug busts of 51 to 100 grams involved black or Hispanic motorists; the only stolen property bust involved a black motorist; and Hispanic motorists were more likely than white motorists to be caught with alcohol. Id.

D. Searches of drivers by consent
CPD searched 1,597 drivers by consent in 2013. CPD was far more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists compared to white motorists (4.9 and 4.46 times). See Exh. 8.
The hit rates were 4.61% for black motorists, 3.25% for Hispanic motorists, and 4.35% for white motorists. Thus, white motorists were slightly less likely than black motorists to be caught with contraband (0.94 times), and more likely than Hispanic motorists to be caught with contraband (1.34). See Exh. 9. For context, please note: whites were more likely that Hispanics to have contraband in all four types of searches analyzed in this report; whites were more likely to then blacks to have contraband in three of the four types of searches; in consent searches of drivers, blacks were only 6% more likely than whites to have contraband; and when whites were more likely than minorities to have contraband, the differentials were much higher (respectively 34%, 51%, 65%, 76%, 86%, 210%, and 270%).

When the 39 busts are disaggregated, whites are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to have drugs. On the other hand, minorities but not whites were caught a very small number of times with 11 to 50 grams of drugs (3 times), 51 to 100 grams (2 times), paraphernalia (3 times), alcohol (1 time), weapons (1 time), stolen property (1 time), or other contraband (1 time). See Exh. 9. ​

E. ​Searches of drivers by non-consent
CPD searched 2,668 drivers by means other than consent in 2013. CPD was far more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists compared to white motorists (3.72 and 5.22 times). See Exh. 10.
White motorists were far more likely to be caught with contraband, taking all forms of contraband as a whole. Specifically, white motorists were 1.65 times more likely than black motorists, and 2.70 times more likely than Hispanic motorists, to be caught with contraband. The hit rates were 6% for black motorists, 4% for Hispanic motorists, and 10% for white motorists. See Exh. 11.

When the 95 busts are disaggregated, the higher white hit rate generally holds. There are a few exceptions: black and/or Hispanic motorists, but not white motorists, were caught a few times with alcohol (4 times), weapons (7 times), stolen property (1 time), or other contraband (4 times). Id.

III. Next steps

This report is only the most recent of many reports showing ongoing racial disparities in encounters between police and members of the general public in Illinois. To begin to remedy this serious problem, the ACLU of Illinois call for the following reforms:

1. Make permanent the Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study Act. All the traffic stop and search data in this report was collected pursuant to this critical law, which was sponsored in 2003 by then-State Senator Barack Obama. Unfortunately, this law is scheduled to expire in a few years.
2. Expand the Study Act to sidewalk stops. CPD sidewalk stop data indicates racial disparity in the use of that police tactic, too.
3. Abolish consent searches during routine traffic stops. They have a racially disparate impact, and in many cases are not truly consensual.
4. Require all police to wear and use body cameras during their encounters with civilians, subject to necessary privacy safeguards.
5. Require all police to issue a receipt (or other documentation) to all civilians they interact with, including during traffic stops, sidewalk stops, and consensual encounters.  This receipt should state the officer’s name, the time and place of the encounter, and the reason for the encounter. Such receipts will facilitate any civilian complaints regarding the encounter.

^[1] Please note that nearly 10% of all CPD traffic stops in 2013 (9,695 of 100,676) lack a reported district. See Exh. 2.
^[2] Please note a few data and methodological points. The CPD data report very few searches in some districts; for example, District #1 (Central), with 3,875 traffic stops in 2013, reports only 12 searches. See Exh. 12. The CPD data do not identify passenger race, so this report does not analyze searches of passengers. The CPD data on contraband do not distinguish driver and passenger searches, so the driver search hit-rate analysis in this report does not include stops where both the driver and a passenger were searched.

Date

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

• Read more about CPD Traffic Stops and Resulting Searches in 2013

Patients and Physicians Speak Out About Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Women’s Health and Lives

Reports from the ACLU and MergerWatch reveal that one in six hospital beds in the U.S. is in a facility that complies with Catholic directives that prohibit a range of reproductive health care services, even when a woman’s life or health is in jeopardy. In some states, more than 40 percent of all hospital beds are in a Catholic-run facility, leaving entire regions without any option for certain reproductive health care services. The ACLU’s report shares firsthand accounts from patients who have been denied appropriate care at Catholic hospitals, from health care providers forbidden from providing critical care because of the Directives, and from physicians at secular hospitals who have treated very sick women after they were turned away from a Catholic facility.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which are promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, set forth standards for the provision of care at Catholic health care facilities. The Directives prohibit a range of reproductive health services, including contraception, sterilization, many infertility treatments, and abortion, even when a woman’s life or health is jeopardized by a pregnancy. Because of these rules, many Catholic hospitals across this country are withholding emergency care from patients who are in the midst of a miscarriage or experiencing other pregnancy complications. Catholic hospitals also routinely prohibit doctors from performing tubal ligations (commonly known as “getting your tubes tied”) at the time of delivery, when the procedure is safest, leaving patients to undergo an additional surgery elsewhere after recovering from childbirth. Catholic hospitals deny these essential health services despite receiving billions in taxpayer dollars. Transgender and gender-non-conforming patients suffer the same and other, similar harms when seeking reproductive health care.

Read more and download the report.

 
Media Coverage:

• Washington Post: 1 in 6 hospital beds in U.S. is in a Catholic institution, restricting reproductive care
• The Guardian: Hundreds of US hospitals Follow Catholic Rules on Reproductive Care
• Reuters: Watchdog finds much larger Catholic influence on U.S. hospitals
• Chicago Tribune: Reproductive care in U.S. restricted by large number of Catholic hospitals
• New York Magazine: There Are Nearly 550 Catholic Hospitals That Can Deny Women Emergency Reproductive Care
• Huffington Post: Womens’ Health and Equality: Why We Supported Cecile Richards Speaking At a Catholic University
• Kaiser Health News: As Catholic Hospital Systems Grow, Advocates Worry About Faith-Based Prohibitions On Reproductive Care
• Becker’s Hospital Review: 6 Findings on the Growth of Catholic Hospitals and Health Systems
• Seattle Weekly: Catholic Hospitals Still Hurt Women's Health
• Michigan Radio: 1 in 4 Michigan Hospital Beds Are in Catholic Hospitals
• Arkansas Matters: Criticism for Catholic Hospital Practices
• Wisconsin Gazette: 1 in 6 beds in facilities that prohibit range of reproductive health care
• Eclecta Blog: New report shows continued growth of Catholic health systems that refuse to provide essential care
• Common Dreams: New Report Reveals 1 in 6 U.S. Hospital Beds Are in Catholic Facilities That Prohibit Essential Health Care for Women
• Fierce Health Care: Number of Catholic hospitals in US has grown 22% since 2001
• Grand Forks Herald: Watchdog finds much larger Catholic influence on U.S. hospitals

Date

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Show related content

Tweet Text

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

• Read more about Health Care Denied

To learn more about the ACLU of Illinois’ settlement with the Chicago Police Department regarding stop and frisk practices, click here.

Have you been stopped and frisked? File a complaint by clicking here. Call our intake department at (312) 201-9740 x 301.

Related information on Stop & Frisk:

• Media coverage round-up following the release of this report
• WBEZ: Poor data keep Chicago’s stop and frisk hidden from scrutiny
• Chicago Tribune Opinion: Collateral consequences of stop-and-frisk
• Federal Judge Orders Major Reforms to NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practices
• Download handbill: Know Your Rights: Stop & Frisk (PDF)

Download this Report as a PDF 

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary
2. Chicago's History of Stop and Frisk
3. Stop and Frisk in Chicago – What the Data Shows
4. Unconstitutional Stops and Frisks Damage the Relationship Between Police and the Community
5. Chicago’s Data Collection and Oversight of Stop and Frisks Is Insufficient
6. Other Illinois Cities
7. Recommendations
   Appendix A: Stop and Frisk in Other Cities

I. Executive Summary

In the past year, the nation’s attention has turned to police practices because of high profile killings, including Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, and Eric Garner in New York. But concerns about policing extend beyond the use of force and into the everyday interactions of police with community members.

In black and Latino communities, these everyday interactions are often a “stop and frisk.” Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), officers are allowed to stop you if the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have been, are, or are about to be engaged in criminal activity. Once you are stopped, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are dangerous and have a weapon, the officer can frisk you, including ordering you to put your hands on a wall or car, and running his or her hands over your body. This experience is often invasive, humiliating and disturbing.

Chicago has failed to train, supervise and monitor law enforcement in minority communities for decades, resulting in a failure to ensure that officers’ use of stop and frisk is lawful. This report contains troubling signs that the Chicago Police Department has a current practice of unlawfully using stop and frisk:

• Although officers are required to write down the reason for stops, in nearly half of the stops we reviewed, officers either gave an unlawful reason for the stop or failed to provide enough information to justify the stop.
• Stop and frisk is disproportionately concentrated in the black community. Black Chicagoans were subjected to 72% of all stops, yet constitute just 32% of the city’s population. And, even in majority white police districts, minorities were stopped disproportionately to the number of minority people living in those districts.
• Chicago stops a shocking number of people. Last summer, there were more than 250,000 stops that did not lead to an arrest. Comparing stops to population, Chicagoans were stopped more than four times as often as New Yorkers at the height of New York City’s stop and frisk practice.

In the face of a systemic abuse of this law enforcement practice, Chicago refuses to keep adequate data about its officers’ stops. Officers do not identify stops that result in an arrest or ordinance violation, and they do not keep any data on when they frisk someone. This failure to record data makes it impossible for police supervisors, or the public, to identify bad practices and make policy changes to address them.

The abuse of stop and frisk is a violation of individual rights, but it also poisons police and community relations. As recognized by the Department of Justice, the “experience of disproportionately being subjected to stops and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment shapes black residents’ interactions with the [the police], to the detriment of community trust,” and “makes the job of delivering police services … more dangerous and less effective.” See the Appendix, for summaries of DOJ reports.

In order to restore community trust, the City should make the following policy changes:

• COLLECT DATA ON FRISKS AND MAKE IT PUBLIC. Currently, officers are not required to record when they frisk someone. If there is no arrest, these searches are never subject to judicial review. Absent a record, supervisors and the public have no means to determine whether officers’ searches are lawful. Officers should record frisks, the reason for the frisk (which must be separate from the reason for the stop), and the results of the search (i.e., whether there was a weapon or other contraband and if so, what type). This should be accomplished by expanding and making permanent the Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study Act, which currently requires police departments to collect and publicly report data about traffic stops.
   
• COLLECT DATA ON ALL STOPS AND MAKE IT PUBLIC. Officers only record stops on contact cards when the stops do not lead to an arrest or ticket for an ordinance violation. Officers should record all stops, including those that lead to an arrest or ticket, and that data should be merged with the stops/contact card database or otherwise made identifiable and available to the public. In New York, this data proved to be a valuable benchmark to assess the legitimacy of the practice. Supervisors and the public should be able to compare how often officers’ stops lead to an arrest.
   
• REQUIRE TRAINING. Officers should receive regular training on the legal requirements for stops and frisks and how to record them properly. In a response to a recent FOIA request to Chicago, the City was not able to identify a single officer who received follow-up training (post-police academy) on how to lawfully conduct a stop and frisk since May 2011. Given that half of the reviewed stops did not contain a legal justification, this training is necessary.
   
• REQUIRE OFFICERS TO ISSUE A RECEIPT. Officers should provide civilians with a receipt at the end of pedestrian stops, traffic stops, and consensual encounters. This receipt should state the officer’s name, the time and place of the encounter, and the reason for the encounter. Receipts will ensure a record of the event and facilitate any civilian complaints regarding the encounter.

Date

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

• Read more about 2015 Stop and Frisk Report