United in the Fight: Sen. Durbin to Hold Hearing on Racial Profiling in America
At this point, most know the story of , a 17-year-old who died from a fatal gunshot wound on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla. The tragic story has garnered national attention, bringing to light valuable questions about the role of race and stereotypes in law enforcement practices. More than a month later, the controversy continues to brew.
While the facts of the case are still disputed, one thing is certain: police have a duty to keep the community safe and follow basic protocol. The ACLU has called on the Department of Justice and other authorities to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation into the actions of the Sanford Police Department. On March 27, Dennis Parker, the director of the ACLU's Racial Justice Project, testified about the important oversight role of the federal government when concerns of local police misconduct arise. The testimony also highlighted the Sanford Police Department's history of problematic responses to incidents involving African-Americans.
It is unclear whether race played a role in the police response, but we have a duty to ensure that it does not in the future. The ACLU has been a driving force behind the End Racial Profiling Act, legislation sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich.) which would, among other things, provide training to help police avoid responses based on stereotypes and unreliable assumptions about minorities. The ACLU has also asked for full funding for the DOJ Civil Rights Division to conduct investigations into civil rights violations by law enforcement across the nation and urged Congress to defund and end immigration enforcement initiatives, including the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs, which foster racial profiling of Latinos and other people of color.
In addition, the ACLU is urging the Obama administration to strengthen the Department of Justice Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to address profiling by religion and national origin, close loopholes for the border and national security, and make the guidance enforceable.
Today, to address many of these much-needed reforms, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) a hearing on racial profiling in America, to be held on April 17. This is the first Senate hearing on profiling in over a decade, since before 9/11.
The hearing will explore how profiling harms law enforcement and focus on the many different faces of racial profiling, including historic racism against African-Americans in community and drug enforcement, the post-9/11 intelligence gathering and racial mapping particularly of Arab Muslims and South Asians and the profiling of Latinos, Asians and other people of color in the context of immigration and border enforcement. The hearing is also timely in light of the April 25 U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in ., the case that will examine the constitutionality of Arizona's anti-immigrant, racial profiling law.
In examining recent national events — whether it's the police investigation in the Martin case or the slew of state anti-immigrant, racial profiling laws — there is a reignited charge to end racial profiling in America. Not only is the practice ineffective, it also allows law enforcement to use stereotypes when making critical decisions about people's freedoms. Law enforcement officers — whether they are local police, Transportation Security Administration officials or border patrol agents — must base their decisions on facts. Otherwise, Americans' rights and liberties are unnecessarily discarded, while individuals and communities are left to deal with the detrimental consequences.
It's time we ask, do we want our law enforcement to use stereotypes, or do we want them to do proper and effective police work?
Learn more about racial profiling: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.