Racial Profiling Bills Considered

by Lydia Howell

“A few states have passed racial profiling bills that were pretty meaningless. So they could say ‘we dealt with that.’ But if things are not done about the problems out there, the public will lose more trust in their legislature and in law enforcement,” observed State Senator Linda Berglin (DFL/Mpls).
Berglin is co-sponsoring three racial profiling bills with State Representative Gregory Gray (DFL/Mpls). There are striking differences between the points and goals of the bills. Debate will continue over the next two weeks. John Wodele, spokesman for Governor Ventura noted that a fourth negotiated version of a racial profiling bill could also be submitted. He adamantly stated, “The Governer is not promising anything right now. He wants debate to continue.” However, Ventura told police chiefs and sheriffs that he opposes a mandatory state-wide study on racial profiling.
Last spring, a task force on racial profiling was organized by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The task force was primarily law enforcement, including DPS Commissioner Charlie Weaver, head of State Patrol Anne Beers, and Representative Rich Stanek who is also a Minneapolis police officer. Representatives of the State Councils of Color participated, but no community input was included in the study.
“What’s interesting is that DPS Commissioner Weaver is not supporting the bill that’s based on his task force recommendations,” said State Senator Jane Ranum (DFL/Mpls). Her bill, co-authored with State Representative Carlos Mariani (DFL/St. Paul) follows the DPS task force recommendations. Weaver supports a third bill by Maple Grove Republican Representative Rich Stanek that departs from those recommendations.
For clarity, here are the essential points of the three bills: RANUM/MARIANI: Mandatory state-wide racial data collection, including searches and traffic stops. A neutral party will be selected to analyze data. No individual badge numbers identified. This bill is based on task force recommendations. GRAY/BERGLIN: Mandatory, state-wide racial data collection, including searches. This bill also includes badge numbers for use by police department and Police Officers Standards and Training Board (POST) use only. The Attorney General’s office will choose an independent contractor to study the data.
STANEK: This is a voluntary study with no badge numbers included. The DPS would analyze data.
All three studies include training which would be designed by the POST board. Only the Gray/Berglin bill included any community input.
“We’re pleased Twin Cities’ police departments are gathering this information voluntarily, but they didn’t collect it in the same way,” said Ranum, arguing for a mandatory study. “That’s important to get the baseline to analyze the data. Plus, out-state says they don’t have a problem, but how do you know unless you look?”
South Minneapolis Representative Neva Walker also disagrees with voluntary data collection. “I will only support mandatory data collection,” she said. “I wouldn’t be doing justice to the community if I settled for less.” Sen. Berglin said, “If police departments can’t identify problem officers, they lose a critical management tool. You have to know where to focus training and education, whether to reassign officers. It’s like looking at any other conduct in your organization.”
While Stanek couldn’t be reached for comment, the DPS Commissioner enthusiastically supports Stanek’s bill, which contains only voluntary data collection.
“The Governor and I oppose collecting data. . . we don’t need anything to tell us there’s a problem. It comes down to individual officers who are cowboys. Local departments already know who they are,” Weaver says. “I’d also like to see a state-wide law enforcement conference so we’d be on the same page, which the DPS and the Governer would support.”
Ventura’s opposition to mandatory data collection not only conflicts with the DPS taskforce, but also the Twin Cities police chiefs who support it. MPD Chief Robert Olson says officers should not be identified while St. Paul Chief William Finney supports the inclusion of badge numbers in data collection efforts. “It’s necessary to correct the misbehavior of our officers,” Finney said at the Capitol public hearing.
“It’s a bogus dichotomy to set up a study versus training. You have to do both or you won’t ever know if the training is effective,” said Michelle Gross, an organizer with Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB). “We give our children mandatory tests in school to evaluate how they’re doing. If we’re setting up new training for officers which hasn’t been done before, the only way to know if it is effective is with baseline numbers and ongoing re-evaluation.”
The community based group also supports including officer identification. “Badge numbers are essential,” Gross asserted. “We’d already be spending money on data collection. Whenever citizens complain about police abuse, the official line is, ‘it’s just a few bad apples’. We think it’s a systematic problem, but if it is ‘bad apples,’ lets find out who they are.”
The Gray/Berglin bill includes ongoing community input, which activists say is crucial to gaining real changes in police practice. The Governor, police chiefs and elected officials universally acknowledge racial profiling by police occurs. At the Capitol hearings citizens shared their experiences and encounters with police. Representative Walker testified about the impact racial profiling has had on her family. Walker made history in November as the first African American woman elected to the Minnesota Legislature.
“We’re not trying to set up officers to be targeted by media,” Walker said. “Chief Finney has said only 5% of officers are the problem, which is why the Gray-Berglin Bill includes badge numbers.”
“Police officers are critical because they have the power to stop and detain,” said Rep. Ranum. “The larger society also has problems with bias. All law enforcement must be held to a higher standard.”
Governor Ventura’s spokesman Wodele said, “The Governor will consider whatever bill reaches his desk.” However, Ventura’s opposition to mandatory data collection puts him most in line with Stanek’s bill. If passed, that bill would result in limited information, no analysis outside the DPS, and would contrive to exclude the public from having input on police accountability.