Racial Profiling in Stop and Search

Background

Police and policing are integral areas of social research in crime and deviance. From a sociological perspective, police officers are agents of social control and sociologists theorise their role in society. Sociologists consider the measuring of the nature of police discretion and its impact on certain community groups and crime through statistics. The term discretion can have certain measure of ambiguity since the police officers have a certain level of autonomy and freedom to exercise their personal judgement when and how they will enforce the law (Carrabine, et al., 2014). However, in the contemporary society, the powers to carry out searches are embodied within a variety of registrations regulated by PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). PACE requires the ‘reasonable grounds’ for suspicion of finding items like controlled drugs, offensive weapons or stolen goods. Authorised officers have powers to undertake searches where such n measures could be apparently unnecessitated on a routine basis (Miller, et al., 2000). This brief overviews two pieces of research regarding stop and search activities carried out over the last five years period. Using the datasets from the Ministry Of Justice 2016: (crime survey), Ethnic Facts, Home Office:Office for National Statistics (Police powers and procedures, in England and Wales 2018), Ministry of Justice (Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2016), Crime statistics and Full Facts (2019) does stop and search work?. These sources have analysed stop and search trends used in England and Wales which indicate a large degree of disproportionality in black individuals having apparently greater likelyhood than white people.

Research question

Using the existing desk research data-sets from Government Official Statistics, I will discuss the question ‘Are people from the black minority ethnic (BME) more likely to be stopped and searched in London than white people?’ The aim of the question is to find a correlation between two variables ( race and number of stops and searches). Does the number of stops and searches increase significantly in London if the individuals are from BME in comparison to the white majority? ‘ (Home Office, 2018). Current pieces of literature from the Office of National Statistics suggests.This area of study has a contentious history and remain a source of tension, attracting significant criticisms and resentment from the public due to disproportionate impact on black community (Miller, et al., 2000). However, research focuses on ethnic minorities in England and Wales (EW). The question is designed to focus specifically on a particular category (black versus white people) in one city at a time, potentially continuing into other cities across EW, creating a more detailed set of data. The data between the cities could be examined to find out the correlation of two variables to establish if racial profiling does exist in stop and search in an individual city.

According to ethnicity Facts and Figures(2019), the definitions of:

Black People includes People of African descent such as Caribbean, African American and black others.

White peopleincludes White British, Irish, Europeans and white others.

Methodology

Stop and search for research by the Ministry Of Justice 2016

The research used two-research methods, the qualitative and quantitative approaches, to examine the number of stops and search practices in EW. The research was also performed to ‘shed light’ on other broader issues relevant to policing to provide a better understanding of the practitioners on emerging issues about targeting specific communities.

The qualitative: A study design consisting of in-depth interviews was conducted in 2016 with police officers and staff. Participants were selected from four forces across England and Wales (two in Swansea and two in London) which had demonstrated good progress in implementing a stop and search policy. The interview consisted of 54 semi-structured questions. A representative sample (n=54) was drawn from available officers and staff who were on duty during the time of fieldwork. Their length of service varied from one to ten years for both males and females.

Quantitative: A statistical and geographical analysis examination of existing police data which was routinely collected and recorded by the police during stop and search, a sample was obtained from a purposive sample of six forces in England and Wales including Westminster, Lambeth and Brent - Metropolitan Police Boroughs. The sample size was collected from a range of most similar grouping which shared similar characteristics. These forces were included in the search because they had sufficient quality data to support the quantitative analysis (Office of National Statistics, 2016).

Below is a sample of a table from police data,indicating stop and search per 1,000 members of the population in London and the rest of EW 2015/16 (Ministry of Justice, 2016)

The number of black people stopped in London in 2015/16 was much higher than white people, so does the research data analysis highlights relational data outcomes shows , demonstrating over-representation of BME communities within the City of London based stop and searches. This indicates a relationship between race and the increasing numbers of stops and searches and could be interpreted as racial profiling by the Metropolitan Police. However, many variables influence the results so it is difficult to ascertain a connection. Police focusing on predominantly ‘black’ areas, for example, may over record black people’s stops or under record white peoples’ stops. More than half of black population in EW reside in London, according to the census 2011, compared with a tenth of the white population (Office of National Statistics, 2016). Nevertheless, methods used to gather the evidence raise further questions about the validity of the study, with sample size being too small to have a direct influence on research findings. The magnitude of stops and searches may be overestimated and small study data should be used to estimate the true effect using the 95% confidence interval. However, considering the methodology and potentially unreported stop and searches in police data, it is important not to make a strong conclusion that the findings have concisely answered the question. My suggestion would be to collect data to collate wider research, recording all stops and searches and providing reliable evidence.

Evaluating Methodology

Analysing police data may lead to inaccurate findings as;

According to the Police Crime Committee (2013), some Metropolitan Police officers do not accurately record all numbers of stops, suggesting failure and less confidence in stop and search data produced by the force.

The self-selected sample excludes those absent, therefore, some selections of police officers were not sampled leading to a research population less representative of the entire police. The voluntary nature of in-depth interviews creates a possible self-selection bias, those willing to participate were perceived without racial profiling complaints. Also, the data may have reflected individual and institutional interpretations of policing biases such as social bias about gender, class, race etc (Kearns & Muir, 2019).

The analysis of existing police data has reliability issues, for example, according to Waddington(1999), some studies suggest police subculture helps to perpetuate many routine injustices against marginalised groups, yet, discretion is rarely guided by legal principles. Discretionary practices are thought to be reliant upon on the taken for granted values and beliefs shared in ‘canteen banter’. Police may act in a racist manner when on stop and search duties which can be attributed, motivated, shaped and sustained by racist canteen talk.

Police may have perceived researchers as outsiders – because police are suspicious of citizens they serve, officers have historical belief that those outside the profession of policing would not support them in performing their duties( an outlook of ’we versus them’). Researchers have no knowledge of how police officers ‘truly act’, possibly affecting what information officers are not able to disclose such as misconduct and corruption influencing outcomes. Officers might also answer the questions in a manner they thought was favourable to researchers rather than their personal views. Police officers might also utilise their tactical skils to protect themselves from any untoward effect of their responses revealing any clandestine information and this could entail speculation of such information to be categorised as

‘confidential information’ . (PAOLINE, 2004)

The dataset covered a larger geographical area than what the researcher could have tackled and the participants who chose to take may have felt strongly about the topic.

A researcher has the advantage of assessing existing data to find more variables than those needed to answer the initial hypothesis.

The use of opportunity sampling was less time consuming and cheaper than other techniques.

The use of existing police data meant less time cost demands in gathering and analysing the information (Bryman, 2016, p. 310).

Methodology

Stop and search by Home Office Publication (2018)

This study attempts to fill gaps in the above research, with researchers interested in how police operatives formulate cognitive ‘suspicion’ profiles as well as stop and search with data allocation performed through the principles of observation. Field observers accompanied police officers during the summer of 2018 for six weeks, monitoring officers in each of the six precincts in EW including three inner Boroughs of London like Lambeth, Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea observing officers on 83 tours.There were early, late and nights shifts lasing 9 and 12 hours with shifts and officers randomly selected, depending on the nature of the job and number of officers on duty who were briefed at the start of a shift. Prior to the fieldwork informed consent was obtained with research objectives explained to officers ensuring the protection of the identitites of the research participants through the factor of anonymity. Observers were also briefed on interactions between suspects and officers leading to stop and search, also recording the sequence of the events and officers’ pattern of behaviour.The two units of analysis in the study involving police becoming suspicious of a person and making a stop based on reasonable grounds of suspicion (GOV.UK, 2019) (Home Office, 2018). Observers coded reasoning for officers suspicion into the following categories:

Time and place – officers acknowledging and targeting specific locations eg social housing, parks, minority neighbourhoods etc. and activities expected after certain times egat night

Behaviour - An overt action by a person seeming inappropriate or suspicious

Appearance – The distinctive dressing, vehicle type, condition and colour and the indicators of social classes.

Take a deeper dive into UK Child Poverty and Health with our additional resources.

Observers found that the majority of individuals who aroused suspicion and stopped in three Boroughs were males aged between 14 to 25 and from minority groups (74%). Black males constituted a higher number at 56.7% and white males much less (2.6%) (Home Office, 2018). The figures could suggest an officer's characteristics rather than ‘reasonable ground’ for stopping i.e. judgment based on a person’s appearance including walking swagger, hooded tops and targeting minority areas in Lambeth and Hackney. Older officers are thought to be more likely to base their stops on assumption (e.g. who is more likely to commit crime than who would commit a crime). While the younger, more educated officers may form suspicion but stop an individual based on regulations only (PAOLINE, 2004). Outcomes of the research suggest people from black communities are more likely to be stopped and searched based on racial profiling. Weaknesses exist in most data collection procedures, however, the observational approach could generate the purely objective first hand data which could be significantly facilitating in terms of operational requirements of surveillance (Giddens, et al., 2007). The correlational analysis considered many variables including time, behaviour, appearance, area etc. Observational methods are associated with ethnography, encompassing additional procedures by observers, such as detailed collected notes of the patterns of behaviour of officers, maybe targeting a certain group. There are also opportunities to observe police officers in natural settings,as officers could act in a comparatively independent manner in the apparent absence of the researcher (Mastrofski, et al., 2010).

Evaluating Methodology

The approach is more likely to be successful in collecting data and observers were ‘accepted’ by the forces establishing an essential rapport and collecting in the information.

The advantage of observational study is that it reflects real-life experiences with high ecological validity. The method is also ethical with officers aware of the presence of observers (Bryman, 2016, pp. 493-497).

The information about who was stopped, where and when the observation was made (race, area and time) makes a significant difference in the number of stops. Stops made on busier weekends nights to follow suspicious behaviour are less likely to happen, especially in areas perceived as ‘crime hotspots’, with a diverse racial population, affecting the findings (Reiner, 2017).

Observers did not record the time officers spent on responding to radio calls, perhaps little time existed for the formation of suspicion leading to wrong stops and inaccurate recordings.

Police officers were employed in different shifts and behaviours might have varied around the observers which could have lead to social desirability bias, projecting a favourable image of the force to avoid negative evaluation can be classified as a source of error (Reiner, 2017, pp. 236-241).

A different number of officers may have varied according to shifts available on the day of field-study. Observers may have recorded inconsistently and may also have been consciously or sub-consciously bias in recording information if some officers are of similar age, race, gender background etc. to researchers hence possibly affecting results (Bryman, 2016, pp. 270-279).

Future improvement

The stop and search policy and data-collection are effective if based on an accurate and up-to-date intelligence-led approach. Targeting the most serious crimes, notably youth violence and active criminals, could provide quality information. This would have strong grounds for suspicion enabling officers to offer good reasoning, hence avoiding a ‘historical’ notion of police data-set is inherently biased (Police and Crime Commette, 2014). Other future research methods include ethnography and quantitative methods. Experimental and ethnographic design are often described as ‘mutually exclusive’, useful in researching police force more broadly and a better understanding of stop and search processes. Ethnography experiments, provide better internal validity and information compared to other methods, but findings might only apply to London based police forces rather than others in England and Wales. Random sampling can be useful as everyone has an equal chance to participate and represents a targeted population providing consistency and avoiding researcher bias (Maruna, 2010) Policing in London and withinthe UK has come under rapid changes. Forces operate under a reduced budget and increased stress, ever-changing crime demand etc. Additionally, crime is changing driven by a technology revolution demanding new skills to utilise technology innovatively so as to obtain the associated technological benefits. A wide range of digitisation of data sources, data acquisition process and analysis would improve policing and surveillance processes, decision making and staff intelligence measures. Also, the introduction of a close knit and synchronised system of supervision would be required to ensure that misuse of data by police forces could be prevented (Kearns & Muir, 2019, p. 8).