Kansas SB93 on Racial Profiling and the anatomy of a "Loophole"

For more than 8 years, local activists and Legislators in Wichita worked to craft a bill that would prohibit the practice of Racial Profiling in the State of Kansas. In 2006, Senate Bill 77, as introduced by then State Senator Donald Betts was passed and signed into law. But in the deliberation process, as the bill was worked through the legislature, language was included in the definition of Racial Profiling that community activists found onerous and unacceptable. The bill included a "Loophole" - language specifically designed to make an otherwise sensible bill legally unenforceable. The definition of Racial Profiling per current state statute in Kansas reads:

(d) "Racial Profiling" means the practice of a law enforcement officer or agency relying, as the sole factor, on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or religious dress in selecting which individuals to subject to routine investigatory activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial routine investigatory activity. Racial profiling does not include reliance on such criteria in combination with other identifying factors when the law enforcement officer or agency is seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or religious dress is part of the description of the suspect.

Local activists and members of the coalition of groups and organizations who came together to work for the passage of Racial Profiling legislation have been uniformly opposed to that language since its passage; and we have worked in each successive session to have the "Sole Factor" language stricken. The inclusion of that phrase, "as the sole factor" makes the statute virtually unenforceable, because all any Officer has to do in order to contest a charge of profiling is to proffer any additional reason, thought, or consideration. In fact, the only way, under existing statute, that you could clearly define a case of Racial Profiling would be if an Officer stopped you and when asked the reason for the stop, he or she would have to reply 'I stopped you because you're black'. Because the utterance of any other reasons or statements would technically clear them of the charge.

After years of deliberation and argument, two bills were introduced this session each with a revised definition of Racial Profiling, each without the "sole factor language" included. The two bills were recently consolidated and now SB82 has been incorporated into and will move forward as SB93. In the reconciliation of the two bills a NEW legal loophole was inserted to replace the former "sole factor" loophole. The newly proposed definition of Racial Profiling reads:

(d)    "Racial or other biased-based policing" means the unreasonable use of race, ethnicity, national origin, socio-economic status, gender or religion by a law enforcement officer in deciding to initiate an enforcement action. It is not biased racial or other biased-based policing when race, ethnicity, national origin, socio-economic status, gender or religion is used in combination with other identifying factors as part of a specific individual description to initiate an enforcement action

I was actually in the Senate chamber when Senator David Haley, one of the parties who has worked on this legislation from the very beginning, asked the question: "How do you define 'Unreasonable'?... and does this imply that there are "Reasonable" applications of racial or biased based policing?"

The response? - "Well that's something the Courts will have to decide"

Ladies and Gentlemen, THAT is a legal loophole. That is how they are deployed. Legal loopholes are used to thwart efforts to bring about fairness under law and to protect wrongdoers through the introduction of vague and subjective language that allows departments and courts to excuse bad behavior as simply matters of 'interpretation'.

"No Mr. Washington, you hadn't done anything wrong or illegal, and no there was no legitimate reason to stop you and search your vehicle, and we are terribly sorry about the professional embarrassment we caused you by having you sit out on the curb as we let our canine units climb through your car, and we're also sorry that we made you late for work... But, it is a very nice car, and you're a relatively young man, so under the circumstances, I don't think that's unreasonable..."
...

To my colleagues and friends in the legislature, particularly those who regularly read our blog and or our newsletter... With all due respect, it is insulting that we have to continuously repeat this same futile exercise. It would be better to have NO BILL AT ALL then to continue to foist hollow and vacuous bills that are as meaningless as they are unenforceable.

At the beginning of this most recent effort, Law Enforcement agencies stipulated the existence of Racial Profiling in Kansas. Our most recent study also confirms it. No one is contesting the fact that it is a real and determinable phenomena and that it occurs here in our State. But THIS language is carefully crafted to ensure that NO ONE is ever held accountable for it, and that is simply unacceptable.

Next, the bill will head to the House. As soon as the committee is assigned, we will post information here on the blog so that you can contact the members of the Committee and ask them to pass a Honest bill; one without gimmicks or loopholes, and one that specifically strikes the subjective qualifying term "unreasonable" from its definition.

Scan the QR Code for a mobile copy of SB93 - the Kansas Racial Profiling Act

Read more...

Governor Brownback issues an ERO removing the independence of the Kansas Human Rights Commission

EROs (Executive Reorganization Orders) are provided for in the Kansas Constitution. They enable a Governor to transfer, abolish, consolidate, or coordinate agencies and functions within the executive branch of state government. An ERO becomes effective July 1 following its transmittal to the Legislature, unless within 60 calendar days either the Senate or the House adopts a resolution disapproving the ERO. After an ERO takes effect, it becomes like statute and the Legislature then has the option of amending or repealing an ERO in the same way it would amend any other legislation.

This year, in response to the looming budget issues, Governor Sam Brownback issued a number of ERO's that would eliminate or consolidate State Agencies. While no one could argue that a $550,000,000.00 dollar shortfall would not require significant reorganization, one ERO in particular will have a negative impact on the community that outweighs any potential cost savings.

Governor Brownback issued an ERO that eliminating several positions at the Kansas Human Rights Commission, and moving their investigations under the Attorney General's Office. While the move is planned to save $200,000.00, the real cost to citizens is the loss of the ONLY independent investigative body with statutory enforcement power in the State of Kansas. Now, as a consequence, persons wishing to file a complaint against a State Agency would have to file those complaints with the agency's Attorney of Record! This will remove any independent investigative authority, which is provided by statute, and will replace it with a system where the State will investigate and police itself.

We, as a body, oppose this ERO and we call upon Governor Brownback to rescind it, or the Legislature to block it through passage of a resolution, or to repeal it through the Legislative process.

I was recently copied in on a letter written by retired KHRC Chairman Emeritus James Butler regarding this particular ERO. I am posting it here with his permission...

Dear Senator Reitz:

I served the State of Kansas for many years as Chairman and Commissioner to the Kansas Human Rights Commission, from 1979 to 2005, when I retired as the Chairman. During my tenure, I served under five governors: former Governors John Carlin, Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves and Kathleen Sebelius.

I was informed recently that Governor Brownback made a proposal for the Kansas Human Rights Commission's fiscal year 2012 budget to transfer the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) to the Kansas Attorney General's office for operation. I was shocked when I read the proposal and I still am because the office of Attorney General is an elected office and, for the first time in the history of the Commission, the Commission would be under the direction of an elected state office and political influence, subject to whatever bias may exist at any particular time. This move would eliminate 58 years of independent decision making in the area of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

The history of the KHRC shows that this is a radical move. Since its establishment in 1953 and through the years, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination through K.S.A. 44-1003 has mandated that a commission direct and govern the KHRC, and not the governor, or any elective office, which might be subject to political influence and conflicts of interest in an area which could give rise to such issues. The Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) sets up a system of checks and balances in the selection of each Commissioner to establish the independence of the decision making process of the KHRC. The KAAD dictates how each memeber of the Commission is chosen or appointed by the Governor (the executive branch), but that selection must be confirmed by the Senate (the legislative branch). K.S.A. 44-1003 mandates that no more than four (4) members of the commission can be from the same political party and this is another recognition that political influence is an inherent issue in the decision making process of the KHRC. Governor Brownback's recommendation eliminates the Commission in favor of the Attorney General or his designee acting as the final decision maker in civil rights cases, which will be a first in Kansas government.

The rationale for the recommendation is saving money and efficiency in government, but the KHRC has been the most efficient and cost effective operation in Kansas government for the past few years. The Commission has been very prudent in spending money, not having excessive travel to national conferences and organizations, little on-site travel relying on telephonic, email and correspondence to obtain information from complainants and businesses. If the object is to save $231,000, there are other ways to save that amount of money without radically changing the structure of the KHRC. Furthermore, nothing is gained by moving into the Attorney General's office because the KHRC already has subpoena enforcement powers and an attorney who handles the legal issues.

This move would result in nullification of both the Commission's independence and its effectiveness in the enforcement of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

I strongly urge you to oppose this ill-conceived proposal and urge others under your influence to oppose same. Thank you.

James E. Butler
Chairman Emeritus, Retired, KHRC

Read more...

City of Wichita to restructure and relaunch its Civilian Review Board

On Monday the 15th, Bob Layton (Wichita City Manager) announced the formation of a new citizen review board that will investigate major complaints against police and report to the City Manager's Office. The city has had a review board in place for years, but it had not met in a number of years.

The new board will meet quarterly and is intended to be more aggressive than its predecessor. The Review Board will review professional standards, allegations of excessive use of force, racial profiling and policies and procedures in the Police Department.

Its members are:

• Timothy L. Sims, pastor of Progressive Missionary Baptist Church
• Brian Carduff, president and owner of Baysinger Police Supply
• David Robbins, former president of Robbins Truck Trailer Sales and a former employee of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services
• Michael Ackerman Jr., president and owner of Michael's Complete Lawn Care
• Jason Watkins, director of government relations for the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce and a former state lawmaker
• Jaya Escobar, academic director at Hope Street Youth Development
• Sheila Officer, education and training coordinator with Goodwill Industries of Kansas
• Shala Jean Perez, who teaches administration of justice courses at Butler Community College and is project director of the Governor's Task Force on Racial Profiling.
• Kevin Myles, president of the Kansas State Conference of the NAACP and president of the Wichita Branch NAACP

Read more...

Allegations of Racial Profiling surface in Junction City Kansas

Yesterday, we received a racial profiling complaint from a woman named Andrea Hall. Mrs. Hall is the wife of a deployed soldier who was driving her car in the Junction City area when she was pulled over by an Officer for speeding. Mrs. Jones has provided the details of the incident in writing and has requested that we make it public.

While sitting at the traffic light of the Grant Avenue and Washington Road intersection, I, Andrea S. Hall, heard a loud thumping on my trunk. Looking out of the rear-view mirror, I noticed a police officer proceeding towards my driver-side door. Disturbed and perplexed by this, I lowered my window, as the officer furiously yelled, “When we get through this traffic light, I want you to PULL OVER into that parking lot (pointing at the parking lot of a liquor store adjacent to the traffic light)!!!” Despite my apprehensiveness of his demeanor and tone, I managed to say, “Ok.”

After arriving and parking in the aforementioned parking lot, the officer came back to my driver’s side window, just as irate as before, yelling, “Is there any reason why you’re speeding?!!”. I replied, “Well, I was sitting at the traffic light so…” Interrupting, the officer said, “Just give me your license and registration.” I nervously fumbled for the requested items, wondering why this officer was so upset. Once I handed him the items, he returned to the patrol truck and he and another officer (who was also in the same patrol truck) interacted for about 6 to 7 minutes. At this point, the other officer came to my car to serve me the traffic citation, asking me to sign it. Noticing that they had written a heavy “N” on the citation, in order to indicate my ethnicity, I said, “What’s this?” Completely disregarding my question, the officer said, “Just sign it. It doesn’t mean that you did it or not.” I scribbled over the entire signature area, now upset and offended by their conduct, but not wanting to get into a debate with the officer. I waited for him to tear the ticket, and then I pulled off.

I called the Junction City Municipal Court and when the clerk answered the phone, I said, “What is the protocol for indicating race and ethnicity, here, in Junction City because when I was stopped by a couple of your officers they’ve written a heavy “N” on the citation for my ethnicity.” Ironically, this clerk also seemed irritated, as she rudely responded, “M’am, we use “N” for Non-Hispanic and “H” for Hispanic. Are you Hispanic?” I said, “Well, no, but if that is all Junction City can see, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, that’s racial profiling in itself. How would he have really known that anyway? That makes no sense, and I don’t believe that you guys only have two abbreviations to use for race.” She said, “Well, it is M’am, have a nice day.” She then hung up the phone.

At that time, I resolved that I would simply go to court and speak with the judge about the matter. So, on Tuesday, August 10, 2010, I went to the Junction City Municipal Courthouse. I called attorney Steve Rosel (who since then, has committed to supporting me with this case), along the way, discerning that I would need some legal advice and support. Once I arrived to the clerk’s desk, she asked me if I just wanted to pay the ticket. I told her that I was actually there to speak with the judge about the citation, due to the officer’s misconduct. I then showed her the ticket through the glass window, asking her to look closely at what the officer had written for my ethnicity. The clerk said, “What’s the problem?” I then explained to her that I did not believe that Junction City would find it acceptable to use the letter “N” for an African-American’s race. I then said as a matter of fact, I want to hear what the judge has to say, because I was repulsed and very offended. She said, “Well, I don’t know what he’s going to say, but you can talk with him.” I said, “Well, M’am, when I called and spoke to your office, one of you guys told me you ‘only use ‘N’ for Non-Hispanic and ‘H’ for Hispanic. I beg to differ, and I will tell him that. In fact…” (Pausing to ask a Caucasian male (service member) for his traffic citation, who had just entered the lobby, I looked at his citation and showed the clerk (again through the glass window) that his traffic citation had the letter “W” annotated for his ethnicity, which is obviously because he is white. Wanting to make sure that she and I both understood that the previous explanation for the “N” on my ticket was preposterous, I then asked an African-American male for his traffic citation, and after looking at it, I showed her that even he had the letter “B” for Black. Speechless, the clerk said, “M’am, just have a seat and I’ll get you on back.”

Joining the other citizens waiting to appear before the judge, I waited patiently for my time to explain this to the judge. When it was finally my turn, the judge stated that I was cited for speeding, and asked me what was my intentions for coming to court that day. I began to explain to him all of the aforementioned information, but was interrupted by the courtroom attorney, who said that was not the time to explain the situation because it was not a trial. I said, “Well, I just want to know how the judge feels about his officers writing the letter “N” for an African-American’s ethnicity.” The judge (and the other court officials) chuckled and said, “M’am, what do you want to do? Do you want to pay the ticket or contest it? I’ll hear what you have to say in a continuance, but the attorney’s right, we can’t go into discussion about this right now. I will not proceed to try to explain what the city has done, without the officer being here. So, do you want a continuance?” I said, “Yes.” After explaining a few other legalities to me, he then set my court date for September 29, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. I thanked them and exited the courtroom.

Mrs. Jones' case is now being filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission (the agency with the statutory authority to investigate profiling cases and request relief). We will be attending the hearing with Mrs. Jones and I will keep you all posted here on the blog...

Read more...

Primary Seatbelt bill passes in the Kansas Legislature -- What does that mean for anti racial profiling efforts?

On Tuesday the 11th, the Kansas State Legislature voted to approve a new Primary Seatbelt Law that will that will go into effect on June 30th of this year. The new law will allow Officers to stop a vehicle and issue a citation to drivers if the driver or passengers are not wearing seat belts.

The Wichita NAACP has opposed the Primary Seat Belt bill for several years. Our opposition was driven by the fact that activists, legislators, and community organizations fought for a number of years to bring an end to the practice of Racial Profiling within the State. In 2006, the Kansas Racial Profiling bill was signed into law and in it were provisions to establish a uniform traffic ticket that could then be used to facilitate State wide racial profiling data collection. A 15 member task force, created by the legislation, was empaneled to develop strategies and recommendations for implementation by the end of 2006. But as of this moment, the 15 member panel, comprised mostly of Law Enforcement, has stalled the implementation of ANY Law Enforcement accountability measures. In fact, the only substantive change they've successfully championed to date has been to have the life of the Task Force extended beyond its originally envisioned end.

If the common sense accountability measures required by law since 2006 were actually implemented, we would have no objection to the Primary Seat belt bill.

We recognize that the Primary seat belt bill is a boon to public safety. And further, we realize that the $11,000,000.00 in Federal Funds the State receives as a result of the bills passage was a powerful motivating factor for Legislators. But we believed, and still believe, that the Police Department must submit to some measure of accountability when it comes to the disproportionate numbers of stops and searches of Black and Hispanic motorists throughout the State. The bill is the blueprint. The arguments have long since been fought and won. All that is left is for Law Enforcement to stop stalling and comply with the Law.

But in the absence of common sense accountability measures and protections from arbitrary, speculative, or purely subjective stops and searches, the Primary Seat Belt bill may well be used to camouflage the continuing practice of race-based profiling. Senator David Haley, one of the authors of the earliest version of the Racial Profiling Bill, described the passage of the Primary Seat Belt bill by saying, “Today, because of our need for public safety and more federal money, we overwhelmingly approve what might be another flimsy pretext for profiling.”

Interestingly enough, during this Legislative Session, the 15 member Racial Profiling Task Force placed a "moratorium" on any action concerning Racial Profiling. So we will now have to wait yet another year to fight once more to have Law Enforcement come into compliance with the law. But in the interim, they will have a new justification for those 'questionable' stops... "Sir, I pulled you over because I didn't observe you wearing your selt belt... now would you mind stepping out of the car?"

Read more...

NYC Sued Over Unlawful and Discriminatory Policing in Public Housing

Davis v. City of New York

On January 28th, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the Legal Aid Society (LAS), and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss) filed a class action lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) challenging the New York City Police Department’s reckless and unlawful practice of routinely subjecting NYCHA residents and their visitors to illegal stops and false arrests purportedly to enforce trespass laws.

The complaint asserts that NYPD officers indiscriminately stop and arrest people living in or visiting NYCHA residences. As a result, people who have a legitimate and lawful reason for being on NYCHA property are routinely detained and/or arrested for criminal trespass. Sometimes they even arrest residents in their own buildings. The consequences of these unfounded trespass arrests extend beyond the initial stop or arrest. They include loss of employment, income, missed medical appointments and separation of families.

“Our clients are New Yorkers stopped and arrested while trying to go about their everyday lives. They are visiting friends; dropping off children; or caring for elderly or sick relatives,” said Steven Banks, LAS Attorney-in-Chief. “NYCHA building residents do not surrender their rights when they sign a lease, and they should not be arrested and drive up the cost of the criminal justice system.”

Notably, these sweeps and checkpoints are only implemented in communities of color, such as NYCHA residences. As a result, New York City’s African-American and Latino residents bear the brunt of the NYPD’s unlawful activities. Indeed, evidence shows that, city-wide, African Americans are arrested for trespass almost ten times more often than whites. Furthermore, when the predominantly minority NYCHA residence is located in a mostly white or gentrifying neighborhood, the disparity in arrest rates between the building and the surrounding area increases.

“The effects of crime exact a particularly high toll on the city’s African-American and Latino residents, but the NYPD’s pattern of flagrant constitutional violations compounds rather than alleviates the communities’ injuries,” said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel. “In our nation, there are some means of law enforcement which are simply not lawful.”

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is asking the court to declare the City’s policies and practices unconstitutional and order that they be halted immediately, as well as award compensatory damages to the plaintiffs.

Read more...

I couldn't resist...

"I’m outraged. I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way, and I am astonished that this happened to me; and more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States, no matter what their race. And I’m deeply resolved to do and say the right things so that this cannot happen again." - Dr. Henry Louis Gates speaking on his recent arrest at his own home...

Read more...

The Kansas Human Rights Commission issues "Probable Cause" determinations in 2 Kansas Racial Profiling Cases

The Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) has issued findings of Probable Cause in two recent Racial Profiling cases. The most recent was a case involving the Kansas Highway Patrol.

The complainant in this case was driving a late model SUV which had been modified with a tinted cover placed over the headlights. The Officers in the case spotted the driver and turned around to follow. The complainant, after seeing the officers turn around and visually seeing the expression on the face of one of the officers, pulled over to the side of the road voluntarily, without lights, sirens, and without having been ordered to do so. The complainant, who was black, questioned the officer as to why he had been stopped and he was told that he was stopped because he had a film over his headlights which was a violation of Kansas Statute. The driver was then ticketed for the infraction.

The driver asked the Officer for his name and badge number, and was told that it would appear on the citation. The badge number did appear on the  citation, however the Officer's name did not.

Upon investigation from the KHRC, it was learned that less than 35 minutes later, the same Officers were involved with another traffic stop, this time of a white motorist with the same type tinted cover placed over their headlights. And while the two drivers were similarly situated, the officers simply asked the white motorist to remove their headlight covers and allowed him to continue with a verbal warning.

The KHRC's report closes by saying, "The end result is that two similarly situated drivers, one African American and one Caucasian, who violated the same traffic law only minutes apart, received disparate treatment as evidenced by one receiving a ticket and one receiving a warning from the same officer."

The second case involved a driver in Junction City Kansas who was stopped and ticketed for "failure to signal 100 yards before exiting a highway." The driver, who is a Hospice Chaplin, was driving a late model Cadillac with California plates. The car belonged to his Uncle, who was a retired 33-year veteran of the California Sheriff's Department, and the complainant was returning home from his Uncle's funeral.

The Officer followed the complainant for several miles during which time he ran a National Crime Center Information Check (or NCIC) Once the check had come back clear, the Officer continued to follow the vehicle until finally pulling him over for an alleged failure to signal 100 feet prior to exiting.

During the subsequent KHRC investigation, the respondent stated that the real reason for the stop was because the vehicle had California Plates. The Respondent stated that due to the amount of Drug Traffic on Interstate 70, officers had been instructed to pay special attention to out-of-state plates.

As a part of the investigation, the KHRC requested validation of the Police Department's directive to Officers that they should stop or investigate vehicles with out-of-state plates. The Department provided no evidence of any statistical information or training modules that had been compiled or shared with Officers, and produced no documentation of policies or directives for officers to stop or investigate vehicles with out-of-state plates.

The KHRC also requested to view the dash camera recording of the stop. The Department advised that since there was no citation issued, they disposed of the video. In it's place, the Officer wrote a narrative of the stop after the complaint was filed and the narrative was maintained.

When asked during the course of the investigation, the Officer advised the KHRC that he did not follow every vehicle with California plates.

The KHRC's report concludes with the statement: "Lacking tangible evidence or reliable training to base what is a very non-specific practice of stopping some California cars for interdiction, we must consider the contention by the Complainant that his race was a factor in the officer's decision to stop that particular car from California. While "sole factor" is a very high standard to attain, our function  as defined by the KSA 22-4611 and KHRC policy is to determine if there is "Probable Cause" to believe that the officer based his decision to stop this particular car from California based solely on the race of the occupants. We do that in this case."

~~~

The Wichita Branch NAACP worked in concert with Citizen's for Equal Law Enforcement and Senator Donald Betts to draft and lobby for passage of the Kansas Racial Profiling act. We currently serve as a point of intake for Racial profiling complaints filed under the statute and we continuously monitor all Racial Profiling cases filed throughout the State. We are currently assisting one of the aforementioned complainants in their efforts to obtain legal counsel. 

Read more...

SB179 Kansas Racial Profiling Act challenged with onerous amendment

Longtime readers of the blog know that back in 2005, the Wichita Branch worked alongside Citizens for Equal Law Enforcement and Senator Donald Betts to draft, support, and lobby for then SB77 which was signed into law as the Kansas Racial Profiling Act. This act prohibited racial profiling in the State of Kansas, which was a significant first step, however the version of the bill that finally passed was deeply flawed. The primary flaw in the bill was the definition of Racial Profiling which stated that 'Race could not be used as the sole factor in determining who would be subjected to routine investigatory activites'. That in legal parlance is what's known as an exclusionary clause. It would basically exclude questionable behavior from the scrutiny of the law if the respondent (Officer) simply cited any other reason for the stop. Therefore, in order to show a prima facie case of Racial Profiling, the respondent would practically have to come out and say, "I stopped you because you were black".

One of the apparent strengths of the original bill was that it called for the formation of a State-Wide Racial Profiling Task Force that would work with Law Enforcement on implementation strategies and would also offer Legislative suggestions on how the bill could be strengthened.

This session, the task force proposed a ballon amendment that would rewrite the definition of Racial Profiling. The newly proposed definition reads:

‘‘Racial Profiling’’ means the practice of a law enforcement officer or agency selecting or subjecting an individual to routine investigatory activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity, in whole or in part, based upon the individual’s race, ethnicity or gender except when the officer has reason to believe:
(A) The person has committed a violation of traffic laws or ordinances;
(B) the person stopped is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime as provided in K.S.A. 22-2402, and amendments thereto;
(C) probable cause exists to arrest the person as provided in K.S.A. 22-2401, and amendments thereto; or
(D) the law enforcement officer or agency is seeking to apprehend a suspect whose race, ethnicity, or gender is part of the description of a suspect.

‘‘Racial profiling’’ does not include a contact by a law enforcement officer of a person when the contact is only for the purpose of asking the person if they have information regarding the investigation of a complaint, crime or suspicious activity, checking a person’s welfare or as part of community outreach or community policing.

It then goes on to clearly state:

(b) No law enforcement officer shall use violations of the traffic laws as a pretext for racial profiling.

These amendments are wonderful and they clearly define Racial Profiling in a manner consistant with the practice we seek to eliminate. HOWEVER - this ballon amendment is something of a trojan-horse. For it also contains some of the most onerous language I've seen in our State legislation. Language that would seek to eliminate Racial Profiling by eliminating Racial Profiling complaints. Section 5, K.S.A. 22-4611, subsection (f), would be amended to read:

(f) Upon the disposition of a complaint as provided for in subsection (a), the respondent (which is the officer accused of Racial Profiling) may appeal a finding of probable cause by the Kansas human rights commission to the district court and shall have a civil cause of action against the complainant (which is the citizen who felt they were profiled) and shall be entitled to recover damages if it is determined by the court that the complainant knowingly made a false complaint.

The Kansas State NAACP Political Affairs Committee, the Wichita Branch NAACP, the Kansas Human Rights Commission, and Citizens for Equal Law Enforcement have all come out strongly against the inclusion of this provision in an otherwise sound amendment. This language would allow Police Officers to appeal an independent agency's findings of probable cause for racial profiling and then sue the citizens for having complained about their treatment. And while some may point out that the proposed amendment only allows for civil action in instances where the citizen made a "false complaint", know that there is no legal standard or definition of what makes a complaint a "false complaint" under the proposed provision. Could a complaint be deemed a "false complaint" if it were not sustained in a civil court? And which citizen would take the risk of pursuing a case through the courts, knowing that even if an independent agency found that there was probable cause to believe that they had been racially profiled, the officer could still appeal and sue THEM for having complained.

We have communicated our concerns to Senators Steve Brumgardt and Oletha Faust-Goudeau and offered suggestions for possible amendments. Both Senators have stated that they will offer floor amendments to strip this provision.

The bill is being debated on the floor of the Kansas Senate TODAY. And it is our hope that the interests of the citizens and community will be secured. On behalf of the Kansas State NAACP Political Affairs Committee and the Wichita Branch NAACP, We offer our thanks and appreciation to both Senator Brumgardt and Faust-Goudeau in advance of their efforts...

Read more...

The Wichita Branch Releases its 2009-2010 Goals & Priorities

On January 10th, the Wichita Branch NAACP held it's annual strategic planning session wherein we set our goals and priorities for the 2009 - 2011 term. We began with a review of the goals and priorities we'd set for 2008 and a critical analysis of our 2008 Branch activities. We then worked collaboratively to establish new goals and priorities for each committee of the branch.

Click HERE for a copy of the report

Tech Tags: NAACP Wichita+NAACP Centennial

Read more...

Judge throws out the Aaron Patterson Racial Profiling case at the eleventh hour: Speedy appeal is planned...

The Battle to End Racial Profiling...
Precedent setting case axed by judge just days before trial
Reprinted with permission of Bonita Gooch
Owner/Editor of The Community Voice newspaper (Wichita)

Aaron Patterson was ready for his day in court. After two years of preparation, Patterson and his attorney’s Uzo Ohaebosim and Lawrence Williamson were ready to faceoff against the City of Wichita Police Department. But just 12 days before they would finally get their chance to prove the northeast Wichita stop of Patterson was in fact racial profiling, a judge stopped their train right in its track.

Patterson’s case, scheduled to begin April 29 in Sedgwick County District Court, would have been the first case heard under Kansas’ relatively new Racial Profiling Law. While only the details of Patterson’s stop by the Wichita police would have been heard in the courtroom, if he prevailed, the results of his lawsuit could have had far reaching affects for African Americans across the state.

In 2005, Patterson was stopped while driving in Northeast Wichita shortly after he was seen talking to someone the police allege was a known drug dealer. The police followed him until they say he failed to signal, pulled him over, searched his car and found nothing illegal. It was a typical neighborhood stop, one brother and several cops; long and drawn out.

Unlike hundreds of other African Americans selectively stopped for minor traffic infractions, Patterson didn’t let the incident stop. He didn’t just pay his fine, suck the incident up as a fact of life for African Americans and move on. Instead, in accordance with the state’s Racial Profiling Law, Patterson filed a complaint with the Kansas Human Rights Commission.

KHRC thoroughly investigated his claim and ruled there was probable cause to believe Patterson was racially profiled. The City of Wichita maintained the stop was not a case of racial profiling.

Not surprising, said Kevin Myles, president of the Wichita Branch NAACP, “The Wichita Police Department investigated more than 40 Racial Profiling complaints that year and exonerated the officers in all cases,” said Myles. "In fact, the Wichita Police Department has never found for (in favor of) a citizen in a Racial Profiling case.”

The City filed two separate motions to dismiss the case. Both were denied. Finally, the case was set to begin on April 29. But, just 12 days before the trial was set to begin a judge threw out the case citing, contrary to the KHRC’s finding, a lack of probable cause.

“We are going to push for a speedy appeal,” said Kevin Myles only moments after hearing about the ruling. “This would have been a precedent setting case and we just can not stand to have it dismissed by a single judge. This is an issue the people (a jury) need to decide.”

Pretext Stops
Patterson, Ohaebosim, Williamson, Myles and the KHRC all agree, when the police officer pulled Patterson over it was a classic “pretext stop.” A "pretext stop" is a stop in which the officer detains the citizen for a minor crime (i.e. traffic offense) because the officer actually suspects the person of involvement in a major crime (i.e. drug possession). For police departments across the country, pretext stops are common operating procedure. For many African Americans who are determined racial profiling exist, "pretext stops" are disproportionately targeted at their race and annoying.

The most frequent reasons given to “legitimize” the stop are: wide turn, failure to signal a turn 100 feet from the corner and tires crossing the center line.

“They are items that are difficult for the driver to disprove,” says Myles. “However, just as the name implies, they are merely the 'pretext' to effectuate the stop. The decision to stop the vehicle was made before the infraction took place.”
.
Are pretext stops illegal?
The 1996 case, Whren v. United States, is most often used to validate pretext stops. In this Washington, D.C. case, two young African-American men were pulled over for failing to signal their turn. When the police approached their car, they saw bags of crack cocaine in clear site. The two men maintained the case represented an instance of selective enforcement of the law based on race, because their traffic violation might have gone unnoticed if they had not "fit the profile" for drug dealers in the area in which they were stopped. They argued that their 14th Amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.

The court was not very sympathetic to their claim of violation of their 14th Amendment rights and upheld the validity of the search. However, the justices implied in their ruling that a better approach may have been to argue the violation of their 4th Amendment rights of equal protection under the law.

Based on this ruling, “most police departments will tell you, WPD included, that pretext stops are legal, but that is not quite true,” said Myles, bringing attention to what he feels is a clear opening in the court’s ruling. “The Supreme Court upheld convictions for items found as a result of a pretext stop, but they have never ruled on the legality of the practice itself. This case will be the first where the court is specifically asked to rule on the legality of pretext stops.”

Ohaebosim and Myles were prepared for the City’s attorneys to use Whren as part of their argument. However, Ohaebosim said the Patterson case, which was scheduled to be heard in state court, should have been a test of the Kansas Racial Profiling Law.

“This isn’t a federal statute, it (the Kansas Racial Profiling Law) is totally independent of federal law,” said Ohaebosim. “They couldn’t come in and say ‘the federal law says this.’”

Myles, who was involved in the drafting of the Kansas Racial Profiling Law said the committee’s goal with the bill was to define pretext stops as racial profiling.

“Our reasoning was simple. At the moment an officer decides that he or she wants to stop and search a specific vehicle, the driver of that vehicle has broken no law, committed no infraction, or done anything that would warrant police investigatory activity,” commented Myles. “If there were a legitimate reason to stop the vehicle, they would simply stop them on that basis. They wouldn't need to use a minor traffic infraction as a pretext. So if the deciding officer has no legitimate reason to stop the vehicle outright, upon what then is he or she basing the decision to effectuate the stop?”

“All that can be known at the time of the stop is the appearance of the car and the appearance of the driver. And as I've stated within the Racial Profiling Task Force meetings, if the Police are not looking for someone who fits my description, then my description should not cause me to be stopped and investigated.

“An officer can’t know simply by looking whether a driver has a valid license, carries insurance, or whether there is a warrant for the arrest of the driver or another occupant of the car,” said Ohaebosim. “But the officer can see whether the person is Black or White. What statistics show is that police use race as a way to sort those they are interested in investigating from those they are not.”

Two independent studies of stops made by WPD have shown the department disproportionately stops African Americans. In 2006, The Community Voice reviewed statistics of tickets written by WPD for a broad group of infractions covering illegal turns and failure to signal, and found an alarmingly disproportionate number of these tickets were written in East Wichita and to African-American drivers. While WPD acknowledges the disproportionate nature of these findings, they still have not ruled that any single officer ever has racially profiled an African-American driver.

Patterson’s case might have changed that.
Although he and all of the party’s involved are upset, Myles remains confident the case will finally be heard on appeal.

“It (the case) deserves its day in court", said Myles. “To throw it out was just cowardly.”





.
.

Read more...

The Aaron Patterson Racial Profiling case is finally set for trial - Case could set a precedent on the legality of "Pretext Stops"

Shortly after the Kansas Racial Profiling bill was signed into law, our office had the distinction of receiving and filing the first official complaint under the new statute. The case involved a gentleman by the name of Aaron Patterson.

.

Aaron Patterson's racial profiling claim was thoroughly investigated by the Kansas Human Rights commission and it was sustained in his favor. The KHRC issued a ruling that there was probable cause to believe that the Wichita Police Department had in fact racially profiled Mr. Patterson.

.
This created a firestorm: Prior to that ruling, the Wichita Police Department had investigated more than 40 racial Profiling complaints for that year and had exonerated the officers in all cases. In fact, the Wichita Police Department had never found for a citizen in a Racial Profiling case.

Later that week, the City Attorney held a press conference in his office to discuss the ruling. I had been tipped off that the press conference was going to happen so I took an early lunch and attended. The City attorney asserted that the ruling would not stand up to scrutiny because he believed that the law itself was unconstitutional. He cited the fact that while the law made profiling an 'unlawful act' it did not delineate what the sanctions should be for commission of the act. After the City's Press Conference ended, I held an additional Ad-Hoc press conference in the lobby of the City Attorney's office where I pointed out to the press the fact that the sanctions for commission of the act had been in our draft of the bill, but the legislators removed them in a last minute compromise with Law Enforcement - to include representatives of the Wichita Police Department.

Despite the City's protestations, the case continued. The Wichita Police Chief would later appear on the evening news and boldly state, "Aaron Patterson is lying". Strange and untrue rumors started floating around that Aaron had been visiting a crack house, that he was a criminal, and that he had been seen with a drug dealer. And the City went on to file two separate motions to dismiss the case, both of which were denied. and now finally, at long last Aaron Patterson will have his day in court!

.

Here's why YOU should care about this case:

Police Departments around the Country liberally utilize a practice referred to as a "pretext stop". this occurs when an Officer sees a vehicle that they decide they'd like to stop and search. They pull behind and follow the vehicle, sometimes for as much as 10 miles, until the driver commits a minor traffic infraction, then they pull them over and request to search the vehicle. The most frequent reasons given for the stop are:

1. Wide turn
2. Failure to signal a turn 100 feet from the corner

3. Tires crossing the center line

These reasons 'legitimize' the stop and they are also items that can not be disproven by the driver. However, just as the name implies, they are merely the 'pretext' to effectuate the stop - the decision to stop the vehicle was made before the infraction took place...

Most Police Departments will tell you (WPD included) that pretext stops are legal, and that the Supreme Court has upheld that fact. However, that is not quite true. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for items found as a result of a pretext stop, but they have never ruled on the legality of the practice itself.

When we were drafting the language the went into the Kansas Racial Profiling bill, our specific intent was to define pretext stops as Racial Profiling. Our reasoning was simple: At the moment that an Officer decides that he or she wants to stop and search a specific vehicle, the driver of that vehicle has broken no law, committed no infraction, or done anything that would warrant Police investigatory activity. (If there were a legitimate reason to stop the vehicle, they would simply stop them on that basis; they wouldn't need to use a minor traffic infraction as a pretext) So if the deciding Officer has no legitimate reason to stop the vehicle outright, upon what then is he or she basing the decision to effectuate the stop? All that CAN be known at the time is the appearance of the car and the appearance of the driver. And as I've stated within the Racial Profiling Task Force meetings, if the Police are not looking for someone who fits my description, then my description should not cause me to be stopped and investigated.

This case will be the first where the Court is specifically asked to rule on the legality or illegality of pretext stops. The City is almost certainly going to argue that the courts should interpret the law to closely follow or mirror Federal law. But that was not our intent when we drafted the bill. We did not write a mere companion bill that would mimic the Federal Statute; our intent was to place this onerous practice under scrutiny. Subsequently, this ruling could be a watershed moment for organizations and communities who are dealing with this issue.

Lawrence Williamson Esq. & Uzo Ohaebosim Esq.

I have been subpoenaed to testify in this case on the 29th of this month. Aaron's case is being handled by Attorney's Lawrence Williamson and Uzo Ohaebosim - two young, strong, civil rights attorneys in whom I have a lot of confidence. I will update you all on this case in the coming weeks. In the interim, keep these guys in your prayers - a victory here could be a real step in eliminating this insidious issue from all of our respective cities.


Racial+Profiling, Police, NAACP, Wichita+NAACP, Pretext+Stop, Current+Affairs

Read more...

The Kansas Racial Profiling Bill (SB610) stalls in the Senate!!

.
SB610 on Racial Profiling has stalled in the Senate Fed and State Affairs Committee. We're hearing rumblings from the Capitol Building that Chairman Brungardt is not planning to allow the Fed & State committee to work the bill.

Ordinarily, we would be all over this, but in this instance we applaud Senator Brungardt's apparent decision to "hit the brakes". Holding this bill past the April 2nd deadline would allow all sides to return to the table and craft a true compromise bill in time for the next legislative session.

Senate Bill 610 was engendered by the Wichita community as an effort to strengthen the existing State statutes prohibiting Racial Profiling. Senator Donald Betts, who introduced the bill, worked with community groups (NAACP, Citizens for Equal Enforcement, Wichita Racial Profiling Advisory Board), Law Enforcement, and the State Racial Profiling Task Force to try and ensure that all of our 'shareholders' had some say in it's language. Unfortunately, SB610 in it's final draft became more of a 'composite' bill than a 'compromise' bill.

SB610 contains needed changes we strongly support, and onerous changes we vigorously oppose. Law Enforcement was equally even-handed in their praise and disdain for SB610, but they ultimately decided to support the bill with a list of recommended changes. The other community groups involved with advocating for changes, namely the Citizens for Equal Enforcement and the City of Wichita's Racial Profiling Advisory Board, reflected the same dichotomy of praise and disdain, but they too decided to support the bill, albeit with a completely different and in some cases, contrary list of recommended changes. The State of Kansas Racial Profiling Task Force, on which I sit, also offered qualified support, albeit with it's own independent list of recommendations. However, we as the Wichita Branch NAACP and the Kansas State NAACP Political Affairs committee opposed the bill and offered testimony against it's passage. We were joined in our opposition by the Kansas Human Rights Committee (KHRC); the independent agency currently charged with investigating instances of Racial Profiling in the State of Kansas.

We decided to oppose the bill rather than offering qualified support because we felt the bill contained two provisions that would essentially make the bill unenforceable thereby nullifying any of its other technical or linguistic improvements.

The first of those two provisions is the section of SB610 that limits damage awards. Under the language in SB610 (Section 5, sub paragraph F), damages are described as simply compensatory there by eliminating any material deterrent to the commission of this unlawful act. A prevailing plaintiff would only be entitled to the recovery of 'reasonable' court costs, thereby discouraging the pursuit of any civil claim. A citizen who felt they had been racially profiled would face the prospect of a lengthy and expensive court trial in which the offending officer and department would face only nominal financial liability, and their award, should they prevail, would be limited to a 'reasonable' interpretation of the costs they'd already incurred.

The second objectionable provision in this bill is found in the proposed changes to the process for investigating Racial Profiling claims. Under current statute, charges of Racial Profiling are investigated by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The KHRC doesn't have enforcement powers, but instead, may render findings of probable cause whose evidentiary value can assist with subsequent civil actions. Since SB77 which prohibited Racial Profiling went into effect in 2005, the KHRC has issued two findings of probable cause against officers here in the Wichita Police Department. While those civil actions are still ongoing, changes were proposed within SB610 which would take any future findings of the KHRC and forward them to CPOST (which is essentially another Law Enforcement agency). The findings of the KHRC would no longer be actionable; rather they would be subject to reinvestigation by Law Enforcement. CPOST would have to concur with the findings of the KHRC before they would recommend disciplinary action. We viewed this as an attempt to give Law Enforcement control over investigations and a potential Veto over the findings of an independent statutory agency.

The presence of these two onerous provisions combined with the numerous sets of conflicting recommendations from the various stakeholder agencies illustrates the need for further dialogue and compromise before any legislative action is taken. We support the apparent decision of Chairman Brungardt to hold the bill in committee and we look forward to coming back with a stronger bill next session.

Tech Tags: NAACP, Legislation, Racial+Profiling, Wichita, Current+events, Current+affairs

Read more...

The Wichita PD unveils a controversial new investigation policy - The Wichita NAACP prepares to challenge

The Wichita Police Department has recently updated one of its policies governing internal investigations. The change affects cases where individuals who have been arrested, allege that during the course of their arrest an officer (or officers) acted improperly and that their rights were violated. The new policy requires complainants to waive their right to counsel during the course of the investigation. In fact, complainants are presented with a waiver form that must be completed and signed by defense counsel. (a copy is presented below)

click on the document to open a full size version

This document essentially states that the defense counsel must agree that the Police Department can and will interview the complainant without counsel or representation. If the Defense Counsel refuses to sign the waiver, the investigation will be postponed until all criminal proceedings from the originating arrest have terminated.

.

That is troubling because it is certainly not uncommon for criminal proceedings to last as long as a year. It is also problematic because at the conclusion of all criminal proceedings, the complainant would be expected to discharge their attorney anyway, so even then the complainant would have to face questioning by trained police investigators without counsel.

.

If a complainant agrees to these terms and gets the form completed and signed by their defense team, they will then be informed that while the purpose of the Professional Standards investigation is not to further develop the case against them, anything that they say that is incriminating in nature will be turned over to the prosecution. So by proceeding with their claim, the complainant assumes the risk of self-incrimination; and by that point they will have waived their right to counsel. But while the complainant is not allowed to have any representation present during questioning, officers who are questioned as a part of the investigation may be accompanied by Union representation.

.

Now I'm no Ivy League Law Professor, ...but I Did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I know enough to know that this policy does not pass the smell test.

.

Mary Dean (The Wichita NAACP Legal Redress Chair) and I met with the office of Professional Standards regarding this policy change. And while they politely argued that this policy had been approved by the City Attorney, we asserted our position that we believe the policy to be at the least unethical, and possibly even unconstitutional.

We suggested that the third bullet point in the waiver be changed to state that if the written waiver is refused then the complainant will be allowed to proceed forth with the investigation under the advisement of counsel. WPD rejected that. We then suggested that the waiver be scrapped completely and that the complainants be afforded their full Miranda rights. They again stated that it was the position of the City Attorney that this policy and waiver (as currently worded) was legal.

.

For the Record: We strongly disagree with the position of the WPD Professional Standards Department and the City's Legal Department and we are prepared to press our case. If someone alleges that their rights have been violated during the course of an arrest, those charges should be promptly investigated. An internal investigation of police activity should not be contingent upon the complainant's willingness to waive their basic rights under Miranda or their constitutional protection from self-incrimination. Allegations of Officer misconduct or malfeasance during the course of an arrest, if sustained, could prove germane to any subsequent criminal proceedings and therefore should NOT be delayed or postponed.

We have since called for a meeting with the City's Interim City Manager and we will post the changes and updates to this story as they come.

Read more...

Racial Profiling Hearing in Topeka--Thursday March 6th

The Kansas Senate, Federal & State Affairs Committee will be holding a hearing on the Racial Profiling Bill SB610 this Thursday, May 6th. The hearing will be in Room 526-South at 10:30am. We are asking that all who are concerned about Racial Profiling in Kansas make it a point to come to the hearing and provide testimony or support to the ongoing efforts to end the practice of Racial Profiling in the State.

SB610 is purported to be a compromise bill with a hodgepodge of recommended changes from both the community and Law Enforcement. I serve as Governor Sebelius's appointee to the Task Force representing the interests of the community in our discussions. We were able to get some significant language changes placed into the bill such as prohibiting the use of race as “a factor” instead of the current language which says Race cannot be the “sole factor”. Also, we got language in the bill which moves up the timeline to start uniform data collection to document the extent of racial profiling to 2009 instead of 2011.

However, this is Not a compromise bill. SB610 as introduced contains what I consider to be two "Fatal Flaws". One item that I strongly object to is that in SB610 the provision of the law that would allow a citizen found to have been Racially Profiled to recover damages, has been amended. Under the language in SB610, a prevailing party would only be entitled to the recovery of 'reasonable' court costs.

A second Fatal Flaw in this bill is found in the proposed changes to the process for investigating Racial Profiling claims. Under current statute, charges of Racial Profiling are investigated by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The KHRC is an independent agency, created by statute, charged with investigating human and civil rights violations. The KHRC does not have enforcement powers, but instead, may render findings of probable cause which preclude civil action. Since SB77 which prohibited Racial Profiling went into effect in 2005, the KHRC has issued two findings of probable cause against officers here in the Wichita Police Department. While those civil actions are still ongoing, the Law Enforcement agencies have proposed changes within SB610 which would take any future findings of the KHRC and forward them to CPOST (which is essentially another Law Enforcement agency). If Cpost concurs with the findings of the KHRC, then they will recommend disciplinary action. We view this as an attempt to give Law Enforcement a Veto over the KHRC.

So while there are some proposed changes in SB610 that are needed and necessary, the inclusion of these two provisions would have the compound effect of reducing if not eliminating the likelihood that any Kansas Law Enforcement officer could ever actually be cited for Racially Profiling a citizen. And in the unlikely event that they were, the removal of damages and severe limits to awards and recovery would dis-incentivize the pursuit of any civil claim. Instead of protecting citizens from Racial Profiling, these proposed changes would serve only to protect Law Enforcement officers from accountability under the law.

For these reasons, we will be testifying AGAINST SB610. I will be doing so in my dual role as both the President of the Wichita Branch NAACP and as the Political Action Chairman for the Kansas State NAACP. We are not interested in any Pyrrhic victories. We will not sacrifice enforceability for linguistic clarity. We would rather see this bill fail and come back next year with something stronger, than to see it pass only to have to return and attempt to undo its more onerous provisions.

Members of the Racial Profiling Task Force on which I serve, will also testify and will offer suggestions of their own for different language and provisions. However, it is important to note that the alternative proposal was not unanimously agreed upon by all. As one of the only Community Representatives in the group, I would like to point out that the Task Force's proposal would have the same net effect as SB610 as it contains the same "Fatal Flaws". I note my dissent here for the record.

For those who are interested in attending the hearing, we will be leaving by car pool or bus from St. Mark United Methodist Church lower level parking lot at 7am on Thursday morning to take people from Wichita to Topeka. We will return to Wichita around 6pm.

If you would like to testify, you will need to contact Ms Connie Burns at the Capitol Building. She says that each person who wants to testify must call her at 785-296-4335 by Tuesday afternoon—March 4th—to state whether they will be testifying for or against the bill.

There are two other bills which the Senators will also hear that day. So, testimony will be limited to about 5 minutes each. Written testimony is also accepted. Each person testifying or providing written testimony needs to send Connie 35 copies of the suggestions they want the Senators to consider by Wednesday morning—March 5th. Please send written copies of testimony to:

Sen. Pete Brungardt
c/o Connie Burns
State Capitol Bldg.
300 SW 10th St., Rm. 522-S Topeka, KS 66612

Thank you all for your support and I hope to see you in Topeka!!!

Read more...

The NAACP Legislative Report Card for the 110th Congress: Was your Representative representing you?

Click Here to download the NAACP Legislative Report Card for the 110th Congress!!

.

.

.

.

.

Read more...

NAACP-SUPPORTED END RACIAL PROFILING ACT TO BE INTRODUCED IN HOUSE AND SENATE ON DECEMBER 13, 2007

NAACP ACTION ALERT

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

THE ISSUE
The End Racial Profiling Act attacks the insidious practice of racial profiling by law enforcement on three levels: first, it creates a federal prohibition against racial profiling; second, it provides funding for the training of law enforcement officials on how to discontinue and prevent the use of racial profiling; and thirdly, it holds law enforcement officials and agencies that continue to use racial profiling accountable.

.

On Thursday, December 13, 2007 Senator Russ Feingold (WI), and Congressman John Conyers (MI) are expected to introduce the "End Racial Profiling Act of 2007." We need to urge every Member of the House and Senate to sign on as an original co-sponsor of this legislation to show broad support for the bill and so it receives speedy action in the US Congress.

Numerous studies over the past few years have provided us with evidence to support what we have known for decades: law enforcement agents at all levels have consistently used race, ethnicity and national origin when choosing which individuals should be stopped, detained and searched. At the most basic level, it is difficult for our faith in the American judicial system not to be challenged when we cannot even drive down an interstate without being stopped merely because of the color of our skin. Furthermore, evidence clearly demonstrates that racial profiling is a wasteful and ineffective means of law enforcement.

We need The End Racial Profiling Act to stop this insidious practice and to help begin to restore the confidence of communities of color throughout the United States in federal, state and local law enforcement. It is supported by numerous civil rights and civil liberties organizations, as well as religious associations and most police unions of color.

In light of the overwhelming evidence that racial profiling continues to be employed today the speedy enactment of the End Racial Profiling Act is a high priority for the NAACP. To be an original co-sponsor, Members of the Senate and House should contact Senator Feingold or Congressman Conyers by Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter!!

If you have any questions, call Hilary Shelton at the Washington Bureau at (202) 463-2940.

.

Click Here for the Action Steps we need you to take...

Tech Tags: Racial+Profiling, Legislation, NAACP, Action+Alert

Read more...

Important Nov. 20th Racial Profiling City Council Mtg. @ 9AM

The struggle to end racial profiling in Wichita continues. Even with the passage of SB 77 into law in 2005, the WPD still denies that racial profiling is practiced by their officers and department leaders.

However three studies since 2001 show that Blacks are 2xs more likely to be stopped by WPD than any other race. This means 8,000 more stops of Black drivers and pedestrians each year. The disproportionate amount of fines collected from Blacks by the Wichita City Municipal Court is approximately $2 million per year. This does not count the additional amount collected by the County from stops made by Sheriff Deputies.

As part of the new Racial Profiling law, each 1st Class City in Kansas is to have an Independent Citizens Advisory Board to work with the police department on training, policy changes and outreach to stop this egregious practice. However, in two years, Chief Williams has yet to meet with the Racial Profiling Citizens Advisory Board. City Manager Kolb claims that since none of the 100 racial profiling complaints have been sustained by their internal WPD Professional Standards, that there is no problem.

Therefore, our Board has voted to go directly to the Wichita City Council with specific recommendations to change officer behavior and WPD leadership assumptions through training and policy improvements. This important meeting will be held on November 20th at 9am next Tuesday.

Pastors and Church Lay-leaders, we ask that you please announce this very important meeting this coming Sunday so your parishioners will be able to come and support our efforts. Also, please insert copies of the attached editorial entitled “Why We Must Stop Racial Profiling” inside your Church bulletin. It was recently published in the Wichita Eagle and summarizes the many consequences of this discrimination on Black families and the Wichita community.

Thanks to your efforts, the Townhall meeting held in September had over 200 people come to share their deep concerns about how racial profiling and excessive use of force is impacting Black and Hispanic families.

Please come this Tuesday to the City Council meeting in City Hall and bring your congregation and friends with you. We need a strong showing of support to let the Council know that racial profiling can no longer be tolerated in Wichita, Kansas.

Please join us on November 20th @ 9am @ City Hall in the City Council Chambers. By standing together, our voices will be heard.

Have a GREAT DAY!!

Walt Chappell, Ph.D.

ChairmanWPD-Racial Profiling Citizens Advisory Board
Wichita Branch NAACP Political Action Committee

.

Tech Tags: racial+profiling, Police, WPD, NAACP

Read more...

Thank you to our Supporters...

This past weekend we hosted the Annual convention of the Kansas State Conference which concluded with our Annual Freedom Fund Banquet. This is the one major fund-raising event held by the branch each year and we would not be successful as a branch were it not for the tremendous showing of support we receive each year from our local community.

This year, thanks to your generous support and commitments, we have reached our annual fund-raising goals. To show you that you support is well placed, I would like to present to you a brief listing of our accomplishments for 2007. This is the return on your investment.

Membership

• Submitted a list of 25 College students to be chartered as the WSU NAACP College chapter
• Wichita Youth Council President Amani Myles was elected Vice-President of the Kansas State NAACP Youth Council.
• Wichita Youth Council Treasurer Kyron Cox was elected treasurer of the Kansas State NAACP Youth Council.
• Wichita Youth Council Secretary Isaiah Myles was elected to the Executive Committee of the Kansas State NAACP Youth Council.

Enhancing Advocacy Training

• On September 22nd, I traveled to Salina Kansas and spoke with students from Brown-Mackie College about legislative advocacy and the NAACP. All of the students in attendance joined the Salina Branch that evening.
• Hosted a reception for 5 women from the nation of Kenya who were visiting the United States with the “Kenyans working for Good Government” program.

Policy Advocacy

• Branch Vice President/District 1 City Councilperson Lavonta Williams has done a wonderful job of advocating for the citizens of her district which encompasses the predominately African American Central Northeast community.
• President Myles now serves on the Wichita Airport Advisory Board and the Community Corrections board
• Marvin Stone now serves on the Juvenile Corrections board
• Charles Coleman now serves on the Cultural arts funding board
• Walt Chapel now serves as the Chairman and VJ Sessions as the Vice-Chair of the City of Wichita Racial Profiling Advisory Board.
• Loren Breckenridge now serves as the Chairman and Kenya Cox as the Vice-Chair of the City of Wichita’s Task Force to deal with small and disadvantaged businesses.
• Kevin Myles continues to serve on the Kansas State Racial Profiling Task Force.
• Emile McGill continues to serve on Governor Sebelius' 2010 Kansas Education Committee

Criminal Justice

• Worked with the WSU African American Student Association (soon to become the WSU branch NAACP) and participated in a Jena 6 forum which was held at the Rhatigan Center on September 19th.
• Helped to plan and moderated a State-Wide Racial Profiling Task Force town-hall meeting in Wichita on September 20th.
• Kevin Myles has been named to serve on the State Wide Racial Profiling Task Force’ Officer training Sub-committee which will begin meeting this month
• Filed a complaint with the FBI and DOJ on behalf an African American woman who was allegedly beaten by an officer of the Wichita PD.
• Filed a complaint with the FBI and DOJ on behalf of two Hispanics who allege Police misconduct and use of excessive force
• Filed 3 new racial profiling cases with the Kansas Human Rights Commission
• Filed a formal charge against the KC Gas station for selling drug paraphernalia in violation of the new Kansas statute that we drafted. Police went in and seized 3,000 pieces of Paraphernalia. And because the station is within 1,000 feet of Allison Middle School, the owners were both arrested on felony counts.
• Successfully handled Federal Mediation on behalf of employees of the VA Hospital

Educational Excellence

• Participated in a panel discussion along with Wichita State University Vice-President, the USD259 General Counsel, and the President of USD259 on the campus of WSU on the Supreme Court’s deseg ruling.
• On 9/5 I attended the Superintendent’s “State of the District” address
• On 9/8 I spoke at the Parent to Parent Support group’s annual Breakfast about Parental involvement
• Held separate meetings with representatives of the District and the School Board to discuss the district’s intent with regard to busing
• Keynoted the Kansas and Missouri Associations of Private and Career Colleges annual conference
• Met with the Kansas Education Commissioner and delivered a copy of our 4-point plan to End the Achievement gap.
• Started the Ron A. Walters Leadership Academy for youth between the ages of 12 and 16.
• Participated along with the Wichita Alliance of Black School educators and the Parent to Parent Support Group in two “Youth Speak-Out” forums. The forms were attended by 300 African American Students and their parents.
• Partnered with the Wichita Branch NAACP Youth Council and the Wichita Black Arts Festival Committee to host a Youth Teen-Summit dealing with the negative terms and images in Youth and hip-hop culture

Political Empowerment

• Wrote a county supplemental budget request and worked as a member of the Sedgwick County Voter coalition to get the Board of County Commissioners to earmark $100,000.00 for the purchase of new voting machines to replace some of those the removed when we switched to touch screen machines.
• We are currently working with the Sedgwick County voter coalition and it’s 25 member organizations on a multi-organizational voter education program
• Scheduled a meeting with Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh to discuss the National Voter Registration Act and the non-compliance of our Departments of motor vehicles.
• Reached out to other organizations with similar interests to build a coalition to press for changes in the law affecting Voter Registration. (Now known as our “20 by 10” campaign)
• On February 10th, we co-sponsored a Legislative Town Hall meeting with the Kansas African American Affairs Commission, Representatives Goudeau and Miller, Senators Betts and Haley, and the Urban League.

Other

• We are continuing to meet as a member of the WYEP partnership and as a member of the African American Coalition
• On July 11th the Branch received a National Thalheimer Award from NAACP Chairman Julian Bond for outstanding branch activities.
• The Wichita Branch Health Committee participated along with representatives of City and County Government, local hospitals and safety net clinics, in a County-wide Health Access Summit intended to develop strategies to make quality health care accessible to everyone.

So on behalf of the Wichita Branch of the NAACP, we would like to say thank you to all of you in the local community and the business community who have given time and/or resources to our organization. Thanks to your support, we will continue to serve this community with integrity and purpose for years to come.

KM

NAACP, Current-Affairs, Activism, Civil-Rights, Current-Events

Read more...