Study Documents Extreme Racial Disparity in Arrests for Low-Level Offenses
In four test cities, Blacks were 2.6 to 9.6 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for loitering, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and marijuana possession.
NEWARK – Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state’s second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied – Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data.
“The data reveal a clear pattern of communities of color disproportionately bearing the brunt of police practices that target low-level offenses,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Udi Ofer.
“In Black and Latino communities, New Jerseyans are arrested for minor misbehavior at a much greater rate than in White communities. Unlike more serious crime, where there is a victim or some form of property damage, low-level offenses rest primarily on a police officer’s discretion to arrest for behavior that poses little or no harm to the community. The discretionary nature of these arrests creates ample opportunity for arbitrary and unfair enforcement of the law.”
The origins of this report stem from a 2013 national report by the ACLU that showed Black people in New Jersey were 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than White people, despite similar rates of marijuana use – a clear indicator of selective enforcement.
“New Jersey’s shameful racial disparities in arrests for minor offenses mirror what we’re seeing across the country,” said Ezekiel Edwards, Director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Just as in Ferguson, Minneapolis, Maryland, and beyond, New Jersey police must end this unequal treatment and the harm caused to communities of color.”
The ACLU of NJ, supported by the national ACLU, further examined those findings by taking a closer look at arrest data from four municipalities in New Jersey – Jersey City, Elizabeth, New Brunswick and Millville – that reflected the diversity of the state in population density, demographics and geography.
In the report, the ACLU-NJ examined 10 years of data on the enforcement of four low-level offenses: loitering; marijuana possession of 50 grams or less; defiant trespass; and disorderly conduct. The report chose to examine those arrests because police officers exercise so much discretion in the enforcement of these types of offenses.
The report relied on departmental data for arrests obtained through the Open Public Records Act. The report originally sought to include Asbury Park in the analysis but the Asbury Park Police Department, despite the existence of a data management system and electronic database, was unable to produce records that could be properly analyzed and was dropped from the study.
The report documented widespread and extreme racial disparities in all four locations studied. Among the findings of the report:
- Racial disparities between Black and White arrests exist in every city studied. For the length of each city’s study period, the data show Blacks in Millville were 6.2 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for the low-level offenses studied; in Jersey City, they were 4.8 times more likely; in Elizabeth, they were 3.6 times more likely; and in New Brunswick, 3.2 times more likely.
- Individuals charged with low-level offenses are generally not involved in serious crimes. For example, 95% of the low-level arrests in Jersey City did not involve any other offense classified as “serious” by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.
- Some law enforcement agencies do not even track Hispanic/Latino data. For example, the Elizabeth Police Department does not track Hispanic/Latino arrests, despite serving a population that is nearly 60% Hispanic/Latino.
- Police department records are often inaccessible and were kept in a haphazard manner by all four departments. The lack of transparent, reliable records hinders transparency and accountability.
The human cost of all of these low-level arrests can be devastating.
“Even though these are low-level offenses, arrests and convictions can impose heavy burdens on the person involved, including payment of court costs and fines; criminal records that will follow them the rest of their lives; and loss of income, housing, child custody, or immigration status,” said Alexander Shalom, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU-NJ. “In extreme cases, a confrontation with police over a low-level offense can escalate into an episode of deadly violence.”
The report recommends remedies at the local and state level that include changing the policies and practices of police in enforcing the law; improving recordkeeping; and creating greater accountability by police to the civilian population they serve. Among the specific reforms:
- Local officials, police chiefs, and prosecutors should agree to make enforcement of low-level offenses that do not harm public safety among their lowest priorities.
- State and local government should adopt strong and enforceable anti-racial profiling laws and municipalities should mandate police training for conscious and unconscious bias, which can influence officers’ decision-making when dealing with the public
- Police departments should stop using low-level arrests as a performance measure for evaluating officers.
- Cities should institute oversight of police departments, such as a strong and independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to review allegations of individual officers’ misconduct and Inspector General (IG) offices to monitor police policies and practices.
- Law enforcement should expand use of police dashboard and body worn cameras with appropriate rules for retention and disclosure to the public.
- New Jersey should legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. The disproportionate number of Black arrests for marijuana possession, despite similar usage rates between Whites and Blacks, illustrates the fundamental unfairness of these laws in practice.
- Local police departments must improve data collection and management, and they should systematically analyze the data for the benefit of the department and the public.
- Police departments should collect data on arrests, searches and stops by requiring officers to fill out reports and publish the results online on a periodic, preferably monthly, basis.
The report also calls on the Attorney General to investigate racial disparities in low-level offenses in municipalities throughout the state.
"This study serves as a glimpse into the racial disparities in low-level arrests for only four law-enforcement agencies. But it's clear: Black and Latino communities bear the disproportionate impact of enforcement in New Jersey,” said Ari Rosmarin, Public Policy Director of the ACLU-NJ. “The Attorney General should investigate whether such disparities exist throughout the state, determine the causes of the disparities, and take steps to eliminate them. It's time for action.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.