Not that they tell you much. I don't know. It's moments like this when I really feel skeptical of our metric-driven society. That said, I'm sure someone else, somewhere can pull a really sound argument out of this. But it ain't me.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/12697
I doubt that its black people hiding things better that white people. It sounds more like a similar number of black/white people have contraband. More black people than white people consent to searches, and this the percentage of black people who consent to a search and have something to hide is smaller, even though I imagine the percent of black people who get stopped that have something to hide is the same as for white people. Of course I have not seen the numbers and am just going off of what was in the article, but that is how I read it.
You don't need to give consent to search for cars as the bar for searching cars is much lower than for houses. They only need a reasonable suspicion to search a car, instead of the higher probable cause + warrant for a house. Cops can also search anywhere a driver or passenger can reach in the car for their safety.
True. But I don't think speeding or other moving violations gives them probable cause. It's not as though they won't make something up if they really want to, but I know people that have refused to give consent to a search, and the cops were unable to do anything unless they want to wake a judge up for a search warrant. Or impound your car and wait until the next day. I'm sure I have some details wrong, so I hope somebody can correct me if that's the case. That's I understand the law, though.
and the cops were unable to do anything unless they want to wake a judge up for a search warrant
The Supreme Court ruled that a car is different from a house so no warrant is required. The main reasoning was that a car was mobile so there's far more to lose if a search can't be made right then, versus a house that's not going anywhere and a warrant can wait.
All they need to search a car is a reasonable suspicion, which means a suspicion that a trained person would have. This is different than probable cause, which means that anybody would have a suspicion that something is wrong. They can also search anywhere that drivers and passengers can reach for their own safety. If there is a racial motive it could be that cops push the issue far more with blacks over whites.
This isn't to say that a cop wouldn't just be extremely careful and impound your car and obtain a warrant (just to be sure the evidence is admissible), or threaten to impound/tear the car apart if you don't agree to a search.
it’s clear that African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian drivers are in fact being stopped more than one would expect based on their overall representation in the driving population.
Sort of comes under the heading of <sarcasm>"No shit! Really?"</sarcasm>
Look, I'm a (very) white guy, with black friends, and I know that people get pulled over for DWB in PG County. And Montgomery, Fairfax,and Arlington counties. I know because I've been riding with them when it's happened. We're talking middle aged guys in decent (respectable, even) cars, doing the speed limit.
Yea, maybe I'm one of these so called "black supremacists" the speaker mentioned, but his argument was so poorly reasoned that it just bored me. No anger, it's just a terrible argument.
Interesting article. One question I have is, if all these white people have contraband, why are they consenting to a search?!? Just a funny observation...
In general, a police officer's "decision algorithm" is more accurate for white people (i.e. more non traffic violations per unit stop) and less accurate for black people. When they see a white person and decide that a search is in order, that suspicion is often valid because it is based on what is presented by that INDIVIDUAL. When they see a black person and determine that a search is in order, that determination is (apparently) less valid because the officer is less able to see the INDIVIDUAL, apart from their racial characteristics.
The issue is simply that they suspect greater criminality among black people than is represented by the actual results of their acting on their suspicions. In other words, they are incapable of foregoing our society's commonly held assumptions regarding black people, criminality, etc. in spite of their actual experience.
Hmmm? holding on to a negative expectation of a racial group, in the face of continuing evidence that the particular expectation is not valid? We should come up with a name for that.....
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"I'm sure someone else, somewhere can pull a really sound argument out of this. But it ain't me".
black people can hide things better than white people...just jokes.
lol.
I doubt that its black people hiding things better that white people. It sounds more like a similar number of black/white people have contraband. More black people than white people consent to searches, and this the percentage of black people who consent to a search and have something to hide is smaller, even though I imagine the percent of black people who get stopped that have something to hide is the same as for white people. Of course I have not seen the numbers and am just going off of what was in the article, but that is how I read it.
You don't need to give consent to search for cars as the bar for searching cars is much lower than for houses. They only need a reasonable suspicion to search a car, instead of the higher probable cause + warrant for a house. Cops can also search anywhere a driver or passenger can reach in the car for their safety.
True. But I don't think speeding or other moving violations gives them probable cause. It's not as though they won't make something up if they really want to, but I know people that have refused to give consent to a search, and the cops were unable to do anything unless they want to wake a judge up for a search warrant. Or impound your car and wait until the next day. I'm sure I have some details wrong, so I hope somebody can correct me if that's the case. That's I understand the law, though.
and the cops were unable to do anything unless they want to wake a judge up for a search warrant
The Supreme Court ruled that a car is different from a house so no warrant is required. The main reasoning was that a car was mobile so there's far more to lose if a search can't be made right then, versus a house that's not going anywhere and a warrant can wait.
All they need to search a car is a reasonable suspicion, which means a suspicion that a trained person would have. This is different than probable cause, which means that anybody would have a suspicion that something is wrong. They can also search anywhere that drivers and passengers can reach for their own safety. If there is a racial motive it could be that cops push the issue far more with blacks over whites.
This isn't to say that a cop wouldn't just be extremely careful and impound your car and obtain a warrant (just to be sure the evidence is admissible), or threaten to impound/tear the car apart if you don't agree to a search.
it’s clear that African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian drivers are in fact being stopped more than one would expect based on their overall representation in the driving population.
Sort of comes under the heading of <sarcasm>"No shit! Really?"</sarcasm>
Look, I'm a (very) white guy, with black friends, and I know that people get pulled over for DWB in PG County. And Montgomery, Fairfax,and Arlington counties. I know because I've been riding with them when it's happened. We're talking middle aged guys in decent (respectable, even) cars, doing the speed limit.
Did you ever think that your Black friends were following Chris Rock's classic rule #7 on DWB?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
That's great. Maybe they were following that rule.
Heck, those rules apply to anyone pulled over by the cops...
Still, it's nice to have the numbers to shake at people who don't believe you. Of which there are far too many.
do the numbers change their minds?
Ugh.
I went to YouTube to try to find the classic TV Nation bit on driving while black... it's more than a decade old, but I'm sure it's held up...
Instead, I happened upon this... caution, this will likely make you angry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV904UBrgAY
I don't have the ability to argue statistics either, but this guy makes me want to learn how...
Yea, maybe I'm one of these so called "black supremacists" the speaker mentioned, but his argument was so poorly reasoned that it just bored me. No anger, it's just a terrible argument.
We can't all be Nate Silverman.
Silver! Silver. We need an edit button.
"Preview is your friend"
I say that every time I post something, without previewing, that I wish I'd previewed.
Only if I waited half an hour. It's usually the second run through the comment string, reading the new stuff, that my typos leap out.
goes back to the running joke of SWB - go up to the ones following you and say,
' you know, while you're following me, there are plenty of White folks that could be robbing you blind'.
Interesting article. One question I have is, if all these white people have contraband, why are they consenting to a search?!? Just a funny observation...
Here is the translation of the "numbers":
In general, a police officer's "decision algorithm" is more accurate for white people (i.e. more non traffic violations per unit stop) and less accurate for black people. When they see a white person and decide that a search is in order, that suspicion is often valid because it is based on what is presented by that INDIVIDUAL. When they see a black person and determine that a search is in order, that determination is (apparently) less valid because the officer is less able to see the INDIVIDUAL, apart from their racial characteristics.
The issue is simply that they suspect greater criminality among black people than is represented by the actual results of their acting on their suspicions. In other words, they are incapable of foregoing our society's commonly held assumptions regarding black people, criminality, etc. in spite of their actual experience.
Hmmm? holding on to a negative expectation of a racial group, in the face of continuing evidence that the particular expectation is not valid? We should come up with a name for that.....