that as a very ineffective policing practice. it is sloppy, it is counting on guesswork. i think the notion that we as a community or we as a nation must use racial profiling to make ourselves secure or to sacrifice civil liberties is not only false, it reeks of hypocrisy. if we were truly worried about national security in a sense of compromising civil liberties, then it would make sense that we would also ask or those engaging in profiling would ask for the prohibition of firearms. we lose over -- we have left over 100,000 americans to gun violence since 9/11. that is more than we have lost in terrorism and the wars in afghanistan and iraq combined. yet, there is not this equal call for gun laws. i'm not suggesting that there should be. i'm offering that the idea of compromising civil rights for national security does not work. what is equally troubling with the idea of using race, national origin, or religion in the national security context, that it suggests the most powerful nation in the world. a nation that is equipped with law enforcement, national security experts second to none must rely on bias and guesswork to make ourselves secure versus human intelligence, technology, experience, and the cooperation of the american people. i want to strongly emphasize this point, senator, that there is no reason to profile on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or ethnicity. lastly, importantly, my last respective is as a black man in america. i am still subject to mored scrutifree from the community -- increased scrutiny from this community because of the color of my skin. i am a father of three and have a 14-year-old son named glenn. even though i have years of experience, i know when i teach my son how to drive i need to teach him what to do when stopped by police. a mandatory course for young men of color in this country. as i end my testimony, i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and the rest of the senators for your leadership. and as much as i am honored to be here today and as much as i was honored to be here 10 or 12 years ago, i hope that there is no need for me to come back in another ten years. thank you. >> thank you, chief davis. since september 7, 2001, anthony ramiro has been executive director of the american civil liberties union, the largest and oldest civil liberties organization with more than 500,000 members. he's the first latino and openly gay man to serve in that position. he co-authored "in defense of our america: the fight for civil liberties in the age of terror." he graduated from stanford university law school and princeton university's woodrow wilson school of policy and international affairs. mr. ramiro, please proceed. >> good morning, senator durbin, ranking member graham. thank you for having me this morning. senator franken, senator blumenthal. i'm delighted to testify before you today. i am the national director of the american civil liberties uni union. a nonpartisan organization with over half a million members, hundreds of thousands of additional activists and supporters, and 53 state offices nationwide dedicated to the principles of equality and justice set forth in the u.s. constitution and in our laws protecting individual rights. for decades, the aclu has been at the forefront of the fight against all forms of racial profiling. racial profiling is policing based on crass stereotypes instead of facts, evidence, and good police work. racial profiling fuels fear and mistrust between law enforcement and the very communities they are supposed to protect. racial profiling is not only ineffective, it is also unconstitutional and violates basic noermrm of human rights b at home and abroad. my testimony lays out how race, religion, national origin, are used as proxies by suspicion in three key areas of national security, of routine law enforcement, and immigration. in the context of national security, recently released fbi documents demonstrate how the fbi targets innocent americans based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, and first amendment protected political activities. such counterproductive fbi practices wastes law enforcement resources, damages essential relationships with those communities, and encourages racial profiling at the state and local level. in my native new york, the new york police department has targeted muslim new yorkers for intrusive surveillance without any suspicion of criminal activity. according to a series of associated press articles, the new york police department dispatched undercover police officers into muslim communities to monitor daily life in book stores, cafes, night clubs, and even infiltrated muslim student organizations in colleges and universities such as columbia and yale universitys. when we tolerate this type of racial profiling in the guise of promoting national security, we jeopardize public safety and undermine the basic ideals set forth in our constitution. in the context of routine law enforcement, policing based on stereotypes remains an entrenched practice in routine law enforcement across the country. the tragic story of trayvon martin has garnered national attention and raised important questions about the role of race in the criminal justice system. while we yet do not know how it heartbreaking story will end, we do know that stereotypes played a role in this tragedy. and yet they have no place in law enforcement. racial profiling undermines the trust and mutual respect between police and the communities they are there to protect. which is critical to keeping communities safe. additionally, profiling deepen racial divisions in america and conveys a larger message that some citizens do not deserve equal protection under the law. in the context of immigration, racial profiling is exploding. state intrusion into federal immigration authority has created a legal regimen in which people are stopped based on their race and ethnicity for inquiry into their immigration status. the department of justice needs to continue to expand its response to these state laws using robust civil rights protections. additionally, congress must defund the department of homeland security 287-g and secure committee programs which promote racial profiling by turning state and local law enforcement officials in to immigration agents. when police officers not trained in immigration law are asked to enforce the nation's immigration laws, they routinely resort to racial stereotypes about who looks or sounds foreign. but you can't tell by looking or listening to someone with b wlooncht they're in the u.s. lawfully. in order to achieve comprehensive reform, congress needs to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to engage in effective policing. we need to pass the end racial profiling act which would prohibit racial profiling once and for all. and we should urge the administration to strengthen the department of justice guidance using the use of race by federal law enforcement agencies to address profiling by religion and national origin and to close loopholes for the border and national security. in america in 2012 and beyond, policing based on stereotypes must not be a part of our national landscape. law enforcement officers must base their decisions on facts in evidence, otherwise america's rights and liberties are unnecessarily discarded, and individuals are left to deal with the lifelong circumstances of such intrusion. on behalf of the ucaclu, i than you for your leadership on this critical issue. thank you, chairman durbin, in particular, for your willingness it partner with our illinois office to address the issue of profiling. i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. >> thanks, mr. ramiro. frank gale is the national second vice president and colorado state president of the fraternal order of police. he served for 23 years in the denver county sheriff's department where he had responsibility for the courts and jails. captain gale is currently the commander of the training academy and the community relations unit and the public information officer. he's received numerous awards and decorations from the fraternal order of police and the denver sheriff's department. captain gale, it's an honor to have you here today, and please proceed. >> thank you. good morning, mr. chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee on constitution and civil rights and human rights. my name's frank gale. i'm a 23-year veteran of the sheriff's department and currently hold the rank of captain. i'm the national second vice president of the fraternal order of police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the country representing more than 33,000 rank and file law enforcement officers in every region of the country. i'm here this morning to discuss our strong opposition to s. 1670, the end racial profiling act. i want to begin by saying that it is clear that racism is morally and ethically wrong, and in law enforcement, it's not only wrong but serve no valid purpose. it is wrong to think a person, a criminal because of the color of their skin, but it is equally wrong to think that a person is a racist because they wear a uniform and a badge. this provides a solution to a problem that does not exist unless one believes the problem to be solve sudden that our nation's law enforcement officers are patently racist and their training is based in practicing racism. this notion makes no sense. especially to anyone who truly understands the challenges we face protecting the communities we serve. criminals come in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and to be effective as a law enforcement officer, it is necessary to be colorblind as you make determinations about criminal conduct or suspicious activity. there is the mistaken perception on the part of some that the ugliness of racism is part of the culture of law enforcement. i'm here today not only to challenge this perception now refute it entirely. we can and must restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the minority community. to do so would require substantial effort to find real solutions. restoring this trust is critically important because minority citizens often suffer more as victims of crime, especially violent crime. i do not believe that s. 1670 will respect to repair -- help to repair the bonds of trust and respect between law enforcement and minority communities. in fact, i believe it will make it more difficult because it lends the appearance that all cops are racist and that we are engaged in a tactic which has no other purpose than violate the rights of citizens. that notion or belief is inhibitive of building trust and respect and can result in a base belief by the community that law enforcement officers should not be trusted or respected. this bill proposes -- proposes to prohibit racial profiling which it defines broadly and is not a legitimate practice employed by any law enforcement agency in the united states that i know of. in rand vs. the united states, the supreme court made it clear that the constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on consideration such as race. further, as one court of appeals has explained, citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws at all times. if law enforcement adopts a policy, employs a practice, or in a given situation steps -- takes steps to initiate an investigation of a citizen based solely upon the citizen's race without more, then a violation of the equal protection clause has occurred. the united states constitution itself prohibits racial profiling. yet, here we have a bill that proposes to prohibit it. the very premise of the bill seem at odds with common sense and current law. the bill does not prohibit racial profiling as the definition of racial profiling in the bill is far too broad. thus, it ends up prohibiting officers from the exercise of legitimate routine invest gatory action aimed at determining involve investment a crime or criminal activity. the bill purports to allow exceptions to these prohibitions when there is a race description provided by a trustworthy eyewitness or evidence of a suspect's race or ethnicity but in real life, this is not practical. in the practice of routine investigatory action, law enforcement officers receive and develop information through a wide range of activities and methods that are designed to identify suspects, prevent crime, or lead to an arrest. this bill would ban many of these type of methods. therefore, a whole range of legitimate law enforcement methods would be prohibited beyond the already unconstitutional purely race-based activity. the legislation also threatens to penalize local and state law enforcement agencies by withholding federal law enforcement funding unless these accesses comply with the requirements of the bill to provide all officers training on racial profiling issues. collect racial and other sociological data in accordance with federal regulation and establish an administrative complaint procedure or independent audit program to ensure an appropriate response to allegations of racial profiling. the f.o.p. testified before you about the consequences of budget cutbacks for law enforcement in the past. how can we fight the battle if we also propose to deny these funds to agencies that need them because they cannot afford new training or new personnel to document allegations of racial profiling issues? how can we achieve a colorblind society if the policies of the federal law require the detailed recording of race when it comes to something as common as a traffic stop? and if -- what if the officer is unable to determine the driver's race? will police officers now be required to ask for driver's license, registration, and proof of ethnicity, please? at a time when many citizens and lawmakers are concerned with protecting their personal information, be it concerns about the real i.d. act, voter identification laws, or cyber-crime, it seems that rare respect and cooperation of the minority community. this is tragic because we have already discussed, it is minorities in our country that are most hurt by crime and violence. this bill, however, is not the solution. it will make matters worse, not better. for these reasons, the fraternal order of police strongly opposes the bill, and i urge the subcommittee to reject it. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. >> thank you very much, officer gale, for being here. roger klaag is the next witness, president and general counsel of the center for equal opportunity. he's held a anybody of senior positions in the just department during the reagan and george h.w. bush administrations including deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division and deputy assistant attorney general in the environment of natural resources investigation, acting attorney general in the office of legal policy. he's a graduate at yale university law school. thank you for being here, please proceed. >> thank you very much. [ inaudible ] >> if you would turn the microphone on, in the box in front of you. >> such for inviting me -- thank you very much for inviting me today. i'm delighted to be here. let me summarize briefly my written statement. the first point i make is that care has to be taken in defining the term racial profiling. and in particular, i think that it's important to bear in mind that racial profiling is disparate treatment on the basis of race. good police activity that happen to have a disparate impact on the basis of race not racial profiling. second point i make is that the amount of racial profiling that occurs is frequently exaggerated and that care needs to be taken in analyzing the data in this area. all that said, racial profiling as i define it is a bad policy. i opposition it for the reasons that many of my co-panelists here are giving. there is one possible exception that i would make, and that is in the anti-terrorism context. in brief, i think that it is quite plausible to me that in the war on terror where we are fighting an enemy that has a particular geopolitical and perverted religious agenda, that it may make sense in some circumstances to look at organizations that have particular religious and geopolitical ties. i'm not happy about doing that, i think it should be done as little as possible. but the stakes are so high that i'm not willing to rule it out altogether. the last point i would make is that there are problems with trying to legislate in this area in general. and i think that the end racial profiling act in particular is very problematic. i don't think that this is an easy area for congress to legislate a one-size-fits-all policy that's going to apply to all law enforcement agencies at all levels of government at all times in all kinds of investigations. and i think it's also a bad idea to encourage heavy judicial involvement in this area. these are things that the end racial profiling act does. let me also say that i think that chief gale does a very good job of identifying some additional costs in the end racial profiling act. the fact that it is insulting, the data collection is time consuming, and that inevitably we're going to either have to guess inaccurately on people's background or else train the police on how to identify people racially, which is a pretty creepy enterprise. with respect to my other panelists' testimony, i'll say briefly that in the terrorism and border security context, as i read some of this testimony, they would equate racial profiling with taking a particular look at visitors from particular country, at considering immigration and citizenship status, and at considering language. i don't consider any of those things to be racial profiling. let me make one last point. i think that this is an important i think this is abimportant to point make wlefr we talking about racial disparities. i am opposed to profiling, particularly profiling in the traditional law enforcement context where frequently it is african-americans who are the trik victims of that are r profiling. it's going to be temperaturing for police -- and there will be a disproportionate amount of street crime committed by african-americans so long as more than 7 out of 10 african-americans are being born out of wedlock. whenever we are discussing the racial disparity in the united states, that is the elephant in the room and it has to be addressed. like congressman conniers and chief davis, professor harris attended both of the hearings on racial profiling. i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak here today about ending racial profiling in america. asian-americans and pacific islanders like other minority interment and the post 9/11 racial profiling of arab, sikhs, muslims and south asian-americans we know what it's like to be targeted by our own government. it results in harassment, bullying, and sometimes even violence. and now we have a third overlapping wave of profiling this time against undocumented immigrants. racial profiling, ethnic profiling, religious profiling, all make our police and security personnel less accurate in doing their very difficult jobs. one factor among others used to decide who to stop, question, frisk, search or take other routine law enforcement actions. this is very close if you look at it, to the definition in the profiling guidance of the justice department and i would note that it does not include actions based upon a description, a description of a known suspect, a person who has been seen by a witness. that is not profiling, that is good police work. all of profiling falls on the same set of data. nay use race, ethnic appearance, religious appearance as opposed to when they do not. and the evidence, the data on this question is unequivocal, it comes from all over the country. when police use race or ethnic appearance or religious appearance this way, nay do not become more accurate, in fact they don't even stay as accurate, they become less accurate -- in other words racial profiling gets us fir bad guys. why is this? because a lot of people find this counter intuitive. there are two big reasons, number one, profiling is the opposite of what we need to do in order to address as yet unknown crimes, by as yet unknown suspects. that is addressed most effectively, through observation, careful observation of behavior. and when you introduce race, even as just one factor into the mix, what happens is the observation of behavior, excuse me, becomes less accurate. measurably so and police officers efforts are damaged and wasted. second is that using profiling affects our ability to gather crucial intelligence and information from communities on the ground. this is true, whatever the context is in which profiling is used. particularly in the national security context, this is absolutely critical. if we are in danger, if there is a threat from international terrorists and if as some say, those international terrorists may be hiding in communities where there are muslims, people we need right now as our partners, like we have ever needed partners those communities have been strong, effectively, continuously helpful partners to law enforcement in case after case across the country. these communities have helped. but if we put the target of profiling on these whole communities, we will damage our ability to collect intelligence from them because fear will replace trust. in response to some of the comments made by my fellow panelists, a bill like 1-1670 which deserves support, is not insulting to law enforcement, it's all about accountability. and anyone who's in law enforcement or any other pursuit, needs accountability just like i do as a profession. racial identification is not an issue, you will not have police officers asking people what their race or ethnic group is, in fact that's not what we would want at all, because it's all about the perception of the officer, that's all that would have to be reported. and black street crime respectfully i have to disagree is not the issue. the issue is how we deploy our law enforcement officers in ways that are effective, fair and carry out the most important ideals of our society. for those reasons, i would support any efforts to pass s-1670, the end racial profiling act. i thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you and i look forward to the committee's questions. thank you. >> thank you very much professor harris. >> chief davis, you have spent your lifetime in law enforcement, and you have heard the testimony of officer gale,a suggested in a very strong and pointed language that raising this question of racial profiling, really, he says unless you believe police are racists, he suggests this is unnecessary. if any group should be held accountable, it must be the police. we all have the power to take life, and the power to take freedom. the idea that we could not collect data to make sure that that would be justicely and prudently. we collect data every day. we collect data on crime, we collect data for budget purposes, we collect data for our very justification for existence. we use crimes to justify why we need resources. i don't think it's insulting. i think what is insulting is to allow police officers to come under the threats ofcc
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Denver County , Colorado , Iraq , Afghanistan , Stanford University , California , Illinois , Denver , Americans , America , American , Trayvon Martin , Anthony Ramiro ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.