subscribe sign in u.s. america has a stop and frisk ...pae.fd.org/files/stop_frisk.pdfu.s. america...

U.S.

AMERICA HAS A STOP AND FRISK PROBLEM. JUST LOOK AT PHILADELPHIAB Y J O S H S A U L O N 5 / 1 8 / 1 6 A T 6 : 0 0 A M

Subscribe Sign In

of 20America Has a Stop and Frisk Problem. Just Look at Philadelphia

5/19/2016http://www.newsweek.com/stop-and-frisk-philadelphia-crisis-reform-police-460951

The cops got angry. They swore at and handcuffed the driver and passenger, a city

employee and a retired tailor, and put them both in a patrol car. Williams, standing next

to his black Chrysler with legislative tags, pulled out his state representative I.D. and

even pointed to his home, which was on the other side of an overgrown lot. “Get back in

your fucking car before I give you a bunch of tickets,” one cop told him, according to

court papers.

U . S . S T O P A N D F R I S K P O L I C E

Subscribe Sign In



When Williams, a retired Temple University police officer who is now Philadelphia’s

sheriff, told the cops he wanted to speak to a supervisor on that March 28, 2009, day,

one officer ratcheted cuffs tightly around his wrists, and a sergeant who had arrived on

the scene pushed him inside a police car. The cops ferried the two handcuffed elderly

men a half-dozen blocks in the back of a patrol car as another cop drove their car to the

same spot. The men were dropped on the side of the road without charges, with the

police returning their car and cash—minus the bills that blew away, court papers state.

Williams was held for much longer as his constituents looked on and his daughter

Jewell Williams sued the city of Philadelphia in 2010, becoming a lead plaintiff in a landmark class-action lawsuit that accused the city of an illegal stop-and-frisk policy that targeted black and Latino men.

J O S H S A U L F O R N E W S W E E K

Subscribe Sign In



pleaded with the police to let him go. “I sat out here like I was on public auction,” he

tells Newsweek, echoing the experiences of countless black men who have sat on curbs

in front of their families. “Then we went to the district.”

Williams, a tall man, rode to the 23rd District police station handcuffed and in the back

of a patrol car with his size 13 feet propped up on the seat beside him. He was released

several hours later without charges. Later that evening, he met with then-Mayor

Michael Nutter and his police commissioner. But Williams wasn’t pacified. He sued the

City of Brotherly Love in 2010, the ex-cop reluctantly becoming a lead plaintiff in a

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Cook County Sheriff police officers search a woman and a vehicle during a street stop in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago on September 9.

J I M Y O U N G / R E U T E R S

Subscribe Sign In



class-action lawsuit that accused the city of an illegal stop-and-frisk policy that

targeted black and Latino men. The lawsuit and the ensuing 2011 settlement have slowly

forced Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell and the nation’s fourth-largest police

department, to change how it stops and searches its residents. But a March 22 report

written by the lawyers representing Williams found that police are violating the

settlement, and the lawyers threatened to seek sanctions if no progress is made within

six months.

That ugly scene outside the Red Top and the changes it sparked reflect a national push

to reform stop and frisk, which can be either a valuable tool to catch criminals or an

ugly wedge that makes minorities hate cops. “Philly is not unique. Philly is part of a

larger picture around the country,” says Ezekiel Edwards, director of the American Civil

Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project. “The police in city after city are

targeting poor communities of color and using their discretionary and fairly awesome

authority to stop somebody on the street walking to work, on the subway, on a bike, and

questioning them and often frisking them to see if they come up with anything.”

Subscribe Sign In



Police in New York City stopped almost 700,000 people in 2011, the peak year under

then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But a class-action lawsuit almost identical to the one

filed by Williams resulted in a federal order that police stop someone only if they have a

reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to

commit a crime. The number of stops last year fell to 23,000. That’s a huge drop, but the

litigation is ongoing: Earlier this year, the federal monitor said in his latest report that

in over a quarter of the New York stops he reviewed, police weren’t recording the

suspicion that made them stop a suspect. The number of street stops in Chicago

reportedly fell by 80 percent this year after a new policy made cops document their

stops with a two-page “Investigatory Stop Report.” And last year the Boston Police

Department implemented a policy that bars stops based on race after a report found

that cops were mostly stopping black people. In the past year, Newark, New Jersey, and

Cleveland both signed agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that will

revamp how their police stop and frisk.

To get a clearer picture of racial profiling, Minneapolis police last year started

recording both the race of the people they stop and the reason. Ferguson, Missouri,

settled a DOJ probe this year by promising reforms to its cops and courts, including

stop and frisk, and Seattle has had a federal monitor overseeing how its police stop and

search since early 2014.

Philadelphia has long had legal fights over the practice. In 1985, then-Police

Commissioner Gregore Sambor ordered his officers to search for drugs on everyone

who walked through 51 intersections frequented by dealers. He then invited reporters to

watch “Operation Cold Turkey,” and some police districts even made up rubber stamps

to mark the arrest forms with the name of the operation. Over two days, the cops

Demonstrator Jihadou Kwantu holds a sign protesting the New York Police Department's "stop and frisk" crime-fighting tactic outside of Manhattan Federal Court in New York on March 18, 2013. The city was defending the policy in court from a class action suit that four black men filed in 2008 alleging police improperly targeted them because of their race.

R E U T E R S / L U C A S J A C K S O N

Subscribe Sign In



arrested 1,444 people, almost none of whom were doing anything wrong, including one

diabetic man who was on his way to dialysis.

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit less than a week later, and the city quickly settled it

with payments of $100 for anyone stopped and $1,250 for anyone stopped and

arrested—plus the promise never to stop and frisk people based on their presence in a

designated area. In the late 1980s, two other federal cases rapped Philadelphia for illegal

stops, and yet another federal lawsuit was settled in 1996, with a $6 million payout and a

plan to monitor the practice.

“We used to be better known for police brutality than for cheesesteaks,” says David

Kairys, a law professor at Temple University and longtime Philadelphia civil rights

attorney who brought the Operation Cold Turkey lawsuit. Kairys tells Newsweek he

believed the settlement for that suit would eliminate “rampant profiling and stops and

frisks without a basis…. But I quickly realized that it didn’t and it won’t.”

Subscribe Sign In



Sitting at a conference table in his grand, wood-paneled office, Mayor Jim Kenney and

his police commissioner, Richard Ross Jr., responded to Newsweek’s questions about

stop and frisk. As I ask my first question, Kenney interrupts: His police don’t do stop

and frisk—“constitutional pedestrian stops” is the term he prefers.

“There was stuff that the police did during the Rizzo years—the cops were in charge,”

Kenney says later in the interview, referring to Frank Rizzo, the police commissioner

and then the mayor—from 1968 to 1980—who was often accused of police brutality both

by himself and his officers. Kenney described the Rizzo years as a period when citizens

had a choice between following police orders quickly or getting smacked. “You did what

you were told, and if you didn’t do it fast enough, you got your head split open. That’s

what we’re dealing with now, the residual of that history...and it’s hard to correct it in

four months.”

Kenney, who took office in January, says the numbers outlined in a recent report—a

third of stops and almost half of all frisks were made without reasonable

suspicion—reflect the previous administration and aren’t “our numbers.” (Philadelphia

police stopped about 215,000 people in 2015, but the first quarter of 2016 showed a 10

percent drop in the number of stops compared with the same period last year,

according to David Rudovsky, a lawyer representing Williams and the other plaintiffs.)

Kenney also says reform is necessary to create an environment where citizens will give

police information about violent criminals.

From left, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross and Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney at Philadelphia's Police Recruit Graduation ceremony on January 29.

J O S E P H G I D J U N I S

Subscribe Sign In



Ross, who was deputy police commissioner when Williams was arrested and attended

the meeting in which then-Mayor Nutter apologized, lays out the reforms he and the

mayor say will cut the number of unconstitutional stops. For the first time, police

officers will face progressive discipline if they fail to fill out the reports that document

their stops. The 21 captains who oversee the city’s 21 police districts now examine those

reports each day, instead of their bosses reviewing them once every three months.

On weekdays, the plaza outside City Hall fills with young professionals drinking iced

coffee and eating $10 sandwiches. But walk north on Broad Street toward the

neighborhood where Jewell Williams was handcuffed and the city changes in just a few

blocks. I stroll by churches and gas stations, and the New Freedom Theatre, which has

posters up for a play titled The Ballad of Trayvon Martin. There’s a burst of businesses

Philadelphia Police officers patrol a street in Philadelphia on June 28, 2012.

J E S S I C A K O U R K O U N I S / T H E N E W Y O R K T I M E S / R E D U X

Subscribe Sign In



and activity clustered around Temple University, but when I reach York Street, three

miles north of City Hall, there are empty lots and boarded-up buildings, and a man

standing outside a gas station on one leg and two crutches asks me for a dollar.

I think of a 1989 Newsweek feature story about the neighborhood that described the

flourishing drug trade, showed children holding guns and called Williams an

“ombudsman for a neighborhood in serious trouble.” A beat cop even said the

neighborhood was too crime-ridden to be saved, noting, “We lost this generation.”

Newsweek's September 11, 1989 story on crime in Philadelphia.

J O S H S A U L F O R N E W S W E E K

Subscribe Sign In



On the street where Williams was arrested, residents are split on the question of stop

and frisk. Mildred Wagner, 24, an Amazon delivery driver, criticized the way the

practice is carried out in terms that mirrored what Kenney told me earlier that day. “It’s

not the 1970s—they don’t have the right to stop and frisk anybody,” she says, sounding

like statements in any one of the lawsuits that have been filed from coast to coast to

reform the practice. Wagner described how police stopped her about 18 months ago as

she returned from a Rite Aid store, then ordered her to get inside her house. “I wasn’t

doing any mischief. That makes me feel like I can’t trust the police.”

But some of the people who hate being stopped on York Street are police targets for a

good reason. “The last time I got stopped and frisked, I did four years,” says Quadir

Smith, 26, who admits that he was stopped and arrested on marijuana and gun charges.

Melvin Carter, a 51-year-old demolition worker, says, “They need to get these guns off

the street. If that’s the only way they can do it, I’m 50 percent for it.”

R E Q U E S T R E P R I N T O R S U B M I T C O R R E C T I O N

Sponsored Topics

1 Best Roth IRA

2 Best Smartphones for Business

3 Retirement Planning Calculator

4 2016 Best Antivirus Software

5 Term Life Insurance Rates

6 Highest CD Rates Today

7 Cloud Computing Providers

8 Compare High-Speed Internet

Promoted Links Ads by Revcontent

Subscribe Sign In



A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Join the Discussion

Skip The Mattress Store - Don't Get Ripped OffLULL

1 Easy Exercise That Fixes DiabetesSmart Blood Sugar

New Unauthorized Video Could Force Hillary to Give Up Her White House DreamsHealth Sciences Institute

CBD Oil Now Available In Local Area, Says Hemp CompanyHealthy Report

These Celebrities Committed Suicide In 2016 And We Are Heartbroken!TheDailyHeel

Female Billionaires That You'll Never Hear AboutForbes

The Algorithm That Can Calculate Your Shirt Size in SecondsProper Cloth

The NSA Are Watching U.S Citizens Online. Stop Them With This Simple Trick!Insider Tech Advice

Subscribe Sign In



90 Comments Sort by

JonesHugh · Owner/operator at Silver Shamrock Family AntiquesHis story is probally not completely accurate. But if he wants communities to go back to being run by street gangs peddling crack and shooting each other with the police poweless to stop it. Let him. Its time not to police areas that hate the police and let them deal with the problem

Like · Reply · 33 · May 18, 2016 8:10am

DonnAvian All the police have to do is curb their racism and behave professionally. I guess that's just too hard for them to figure out. And people in those communities pay their taxes, which pay the police salaries, so no, police can't stop doing the job communities are paying them to do. I know that a favorite white revenge fantasy, but it's not going to happen.

Like · Reply · 23 · 23 hrs

ManCave · Washington, District of ColumbiaMaybe if they stop and frisk white boys going into movies there wont be mass shootings


JonesHugh · Owner/operator at Silver Shamrock Family AntiquesAvian Donn it is happening it's happening right now in Baltimore, Chicago, New York everywhere police are being unfairly targeted by the criminal elements supporters and racists who hate police. The we pay your salary thing is garbage. You are lucky you have people volunteer to go out and try to stop the flood of people behaving horribly and trying to kill rape and rob from each other. Put every day police officer go out and try to put a finger in a damn to hold back the flood of chaos and are hated for it because it shows how people like you do nothing for society but bitch about how horrible the people trying to help are.


Show 10 more replies in this thread

MayDonna · Illinois State UniversityAmerica has a MSM problem.

Like · Reply · 10 · May 18, 2016 8:26am

MarcPaul · Way below my capabilities at Lots of Knot-HaidsYou dissing our "beloved" traitor media ?Right...every sane person knows the score except the traitor circle-the-wagons-leftist

di

OldestOldest

Add a comment...

Subscribe Sign In




Subscribe Sign In



Most Read

Why the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is at Risk of Unraveling

'The Walking Dead': Rick Grimes Will Die, Says Creator

Subscribe Sign In




Harry Styles Shows Off New Haircut on Set of New Film

'Game of Thrones': 'Book of the Stranger' Preview

Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out

Subscribe Sign In



More From Newsweek

Gunmen Kill 14 Near Los Angeles in Worst Mass Shooting Since Sandy HookGunman Who Killed Virginia News Crew Dies After Shooting Himself

by Revcontent

Subscribe Sign In



Most Read


Why the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is at Risk of Unraveling

'The Walking Dead': Rick Grimes Will Die, Says Creator

Harry Styles Shows Off New Haircut on Set of New Film

'Game of Thrones': 'Book of the Stranger' Preview

Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out

RELATED STORIES

Subscribe Sign In



© 2 0 1 6 N E W S W E E K L L C

About Us

Corrections

Contact Us

OPINION

Chicago Cops Are Abusing Stop-and-Frisk

Police target minorities disproportionately--and do not...

U.S.

‘Jump-Outs,’ the ‘Stoand-Frisk’ of D.C.

As people around the countdebate racial policing and.Subscribe Sign In



IBT Media

Careers

Advertise

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Terms of Sale

Archive

BERNIE MEV WOMEN'S LUCIOUS SANDALS

(9)

$78.45 - $156.00Shop nowShop now

Subscribe Sign In



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mahari Bailey, et al., :

Plaintiffs : C.A. No. 10-5952

:

v. :

:

City of Philadelphia, et al., :

Defendants :

PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH REPORT TO COURT AND MONITOR

ON STOP AND FRISK PRACTICES

I. Introduction

A. The Current State of Non-Compliance with the Consent Decree

This Fifth Report to the Court and Monitor presents compelling evidence that

nearly four years after the entry of the Consent Decree the City has failed to adequately

remedy the serious flaws that existed (and continue to exist) in the Police Department’s

stop and frisk practices. The Consent Decree was intended to ensure that stops and frisks

are conducted only where there is the requisite “reasonable suspicion” of criminal

conduct and to ensure that any racial disparities in stops and frisks are not the result of

racial bias. On the issue of whether stops and frisks are supported by reasonable

suspicion, the data shows very high levels of impermissible stops. And, on the issue of

whether impermissible racial factors are causing high numbers of racial minorities to be

stopped and frisked, consideration of the “benchmarks” for assessing possible racial bias

demonstrates that non-racial factors do not explain the racial disparities. As we discuss

below, there is an urgent need for substantial improvements on both issues, and if that is

not accomplished in the near future, we will seek court intervention.

Case 2:10-cv-05952-SD Document 50 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 47

2

B. Procedural History

On June 21, 2011, the Court approved a Settlement Agreement, Class

Certification, and Consent Decree (“Agreement”) in this matter. On February 6, 2012,

plaintiffs submitted their First Report which analyzed stop and frisk data for the first two

quarters of 2011. The First Report focused on Fourth Amendment issues, and specifically

whether there was sufficient cause for the stops and frisks reported by the Philadelphia

Police Department (“PPD”). The audits showed that over 50% of stops and frisks were

undertaken without reasonable suspicion.

Plaintiffs’ Second Report was submitted in July 2012, and included (1) a Fourth

Amendment analysis of the Third Quarter 2011 stop and frisk data, (2) a racial analysis of

the data for the First and Second Quarters, 2011, and (3) a racial analysis of arrests for

possession of small amounts of marijuana for the period September 15-November 15,

2011. Plaintiffs reported continued high rates of stops and frisks without reasonable

suspicion (over 40% in both categories). On the question of racial disparities, plaintiffs’

expert, Professor David Abrams, considered the benchmarks that had been agreed upon

by the parties as metrics that should be used in this analysis. Professor Abrams also

conducted a series of regression analyses and concluded that the racial disparities in stops

and frisks (numbers by race compared to census data) were not fully explainable by

non-racial factors. Further, the analysis of marijuana arrests showed even more

pronounced disparities, with Blacks and Latinos constituting over 90% of all marijuana

arrests.

Plaintiffs’ Third Report focused on stop and frisk practices for the first two

quarters of 2012 and analyzed marijuana arrests for the period September 15-November


3

15, 2012. Plaintiffs again found a rate of non-compliance with Fourth Amendment

standards of over 40%, and racial minorities constituting over 90% of arrests for small

amounts of marijuana. In response, the City stated that the PPD was providing additional

training, issuing revised auditing protocols, and instituting new accountability measures.

The Fourth Report, filed in December, 2013, analyzed stops and frisks in 2012

and 2013, on both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. We found that pedestrian

stops were made without reasonable suspicion in 43% of the cases reviewed, and frisks

were conducted without reasonable suspicion in over 50% of the cases. There continued

to be very low “hit-rates,” with only 3 guns recovered in over 1100 stops (0.27%).

Overall, contraband of any kind was recovered in only 3% of the stops. We also noted the

relatively low number of frisks reported, with only 20% of stops resulting in frisks, and

numerous stops based on allegations of violent crime or weapon possession, where no

frisk was conducted.

The stops and frisks continued to be racially disproportionate with statistically

significant racial disparities that were not explained by non-racial factors (e.g., crime

rates, demographics of police districts, age, and gender). The rate of stops without

reasonable suspicion for Blacks was 6.5 percentage points higher than the rate for

Whites, indicating that police were using a higher threshold of “reasonable suspicion” for

stops of White suspects.

Thus, by the close of 2013, two and one-half years after the entry of the

Consent Decree in this case, there continued to be very high rates of stops and frisks

without reasonable suspicion and sufficient evidence to conclude that the racially

disproportionate rates of stops and frisks was not explainable by non-racial factors.


4

Plaintiffs stated that the time for court intervention was drawing closer:

Plaintiffs did not expect that the transition from a stop and frisk practice that

lacked any meaningful oversight to a system that accurately tabulates all stops and

frisks and in which there is substantial compliance with the Constitution would be

immediately successful. On the technology front, the initial design of the data

base was flawed, but the City is moving to implement a new system. On the issue

of whether stops and frisks are being conducted consistent with established legal

standards, and in particular only where reasonable suspicion supports the stop or

frisk, the results of our audits through the first two quarters of 2012 reflect

persistent and unacceptably high rates of improper actions. Unless there is a

dramatic change in practices, we will be compelled to seek judicial relief. Third

Report, at 11.

Plaintiffs also stated that with the new electronic data system on-line in 2014 and

new audit and accountability measures in place, we expected significant improvements in

2014 and, failing such progress, that we would seek sanctions from the Court. Fourth

Report, at 9.1

On the Fourth Amendment issue, the City’s Response included an internal audit

that showed a 35% rate of pedestrian stops without reasonable suspicion by patrol

officers. The City asserted that the high rates of stops without reasonable suspicion were

the result of “incomplete paperwork, improper narratives used by police officers, and an

overall lack of credibility in the electronic data base.” City Reply, at 1. Further, the City

asserted that these problems would be rectified once the new electronic data base was

implemented, training of officers was completed, and better auditing procedures were

instituted.

On the Fourteenth Amendment issue, the City’s expert, Dr. Ralph Taylor of

Temple University, using certain benchmarks that differed from those agreed upon by the

1 The electronic data base developed by the City in 2011-2012 proved to be deficient in several respects and a new data base was developed and implemented in 2014.


5

parties, found no statistically significant evidence of racial bias. To ensure that the

experts were in accord on the proper benchmarks, the parties met and conferred with the

Court Monitor, Dean Joanne Epps. Professor Abrams thereafter drafted a slightly revised

set of benchmarks which is the basis of his analysis in this Fifth Report.

We turn now to our analysis of the first two quarters, 2014.

C. The Data Review Process

Plaintiffs have established a careful and comprehensive review process of the stop

and frisk data provided by the Police Department. Each quarter, we are provided data

from approximately 3200 randomly selected pedestrian and car stops, but for our review

we consider only pedestrian stops. Counsel for plaintiffs and trained law students

independently review each pedestrian stop and frisk under guidelines that incorporate the

standards set forth in the Agreement and by the United States and Pennsylvania Supreme

Courts.2 We accept at face value the reasons stated by police officers for the stops and

frisks, and make assessments based solely on whether these reasons comport with

standards established by the Agreement and the Fourth Amendment. In close cases, we

credit the stated basis for the stop and frisk.

Counsel for plaintiffs have discussed the appropriate Fourth Amendment

standards with Inspectors in the PPD. Along the same lines, plaintiffs have provided the

City a breakdown of the categories of stops and frisks that have most frequently resulted

in improper police interventions. The City has made changes in the PPD audit process,

including the assignment of Deputy Commissioner Nola Joyce to oversee the

2 These reviews show a high level of agreement between counsel and the law students as to the

propriety of stops and frisks. This Report is based on counsel’s reviews.


6

implementation of the Agreement, the assignment of trained Inspectors to ensure more

accurate reviews, and reviews by the PPD Office of Standards and Accountability.

II. Review of 75-48a Forms, First Two Quarters, 2014

A. Fourth Amendment Analysis

In this section, plaintiffs set forth their findings on the issue of whether stops and

frisks for the first two quarters of 2014 were supported by the requisite reasonable

suspicion. As in previous audits, in assessing whether reasonable suspicion existed for the

stop or frisk, we fully credited the narrative information provided by the officer and in

“close” cases credited the assertion of reasonable suspicion.3

For the first two quarters of 2014, the PPD provided a random sample of 2974

pedestrian stops. We determined that 2519 of these stops were actual pedestrian stops (as

opposed to arrests, car related stops, or contacts with civilians that did not constitute a

Terry stop). We also excluded stops at the airport as those stops (few in number) could

not be analyzed for racial disparities given the unknown racial demographics of airport

travelers and visitors. Of these 2519 pedestrian stops, 63% were supported by reasonable

suspicion and 37% were made without reasonable suspicion (and the same ratios were

found even including the few airport stops excluded from our analysis). Frisks were

reported in 589 stops, but 156 were searches and not frisks (often, searches incident to

arrest), thus leaving 433 actual frisks. Of these, 47% were made with reasonable

suspicion, 39% were made without reasonable suspicion, and 14% were preceded by a

3 With respect to frisks, we have created a third category for situations where the stop was

impermissible, but the reasons for the frisk were otherwise proper. In these cases, we record the frisk as

“the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Under this doctrine, the evidence that was seized would likely be

suppressed in a criminal prosecution due to the improper stop.


7

stop without reasonable suspicion (“fruit of the poisonous tree” category). By race, 80%

of the stops were of minorities (African-Americans and Latinos) and 89% of the frisks

were of minorities.

1. Stop Data

Actual Stops 2519

Reasonable Suspicion 1578 63%

No Reasonable Suspicion 941 37%

Reasonable Suspicion

63%

No Reasonable Suspicion

37%

Stops: First Two Quarters, 2014


8

2. Frisk Data

Frisks 433 Reasonable Suspicion 204 47%

No Reasonable Suspicion 168 39%

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 61 14%

Reasonable Suspicion

47% No Reasonable

Suspicion 39%

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

14%

Frisks: First Two Quarters, 2014


9

3. Stop/Frisk Ratio

As noted above, while officers documented frisks in 589 cases, in 156 of these cases, the

officers conducted a search, and not a frisk. The 433 frisks represent 17% of the 2519

stops.

Non-Frisk 83%

Frisk 17%

Stops Followed By Frisk


10

4. Contraband Recovered by Stops

Non-Gun Contraband 53

Guns 5

No contraband 2461

Total Stops 2519

53 5

2461

Stops Resulting In Recovery Of Contraband

Non-Gun Contraband

Guns

Nothing


11

5. Contraband Recovered by Frisks

Non-Gun Contraband 19

Guns 2

No contraband 412

Total Frisks 433

6. Contraband Recovered By Frisks, With and Without Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable Suspicion 11 (out of 204 frisks with RS)

No Reasonable Suspicion 5 (out of 168 frisks without RS)

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 5 (out of 61 frisks as FPT)

19 2

412

Frisks Resulting In Recovery Of Contraband

Non-Gun Contraband

Guns

No Contraband


12

7. Racial Composition of Philadelphia (2010 Census)

1,517,550 total

White

644,395 42.46%

Black & African American 655,824 43.22%

Hispanic 128,928 8.50%

Asian 67,654 4.46%

American Indian / Pacific Islander / Other 20,749 1.37%

White 43%

Black & African American

43%

Hispanic 9%

Asian 4%

American Indian / Pacific Islander /

Other 1%

Racial Composition of Philadelphia


13

8. Stops by Race

Black 1803 71.58% 80.23% minorities

White 498 19.77%

Latino 218 8.65%

Total 2519

1803

498

218

Stops by Race

Black

White

Latino


14

9. Stops by Race and Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable Unreasonable Reasonable %

Black 1109 694 61.51%

White 339 159 68.07%

Latino 130 88 59.63%

Total 1578 941 2519

62.64% 37.36%

1109

339

130

694

159

88

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Black

White

Latino

Reasonable Basis For Stop

Reasonable Unreasonable


15

10. Frisks By Race

Black 344 79.45% 89.15% minorities

White 47 10.85%

Latino 42 9.70%

Total 433

344

47

42

Frisks by Race

Black

White

Latino


16

11. Frisks by Race and Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable Unreasonable FTPT Reasonable %

Black 171 124 49 49.71%

White 18 25 4 38.30%

Latino 15 19 8 35.71%

Total 204 168 61 433

47.11% 38.80% 14.09%

171

18

15

124

25

19

49

4

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Black

White

Latino

Reasonable Basis for Frisk

Reasonable Unreasonable FTPT


17

B. Commentary on Fourth Amendment Issues

There are a number of significant findings from the data review.

1. We have determined that 37% of all stops were made without the requisite

reasonable suspicion. Significantly, the PPD audits show similar rates of stops without

reasonable suspicion: the audits for the first two quarters of 2014 by the PPD show patrol

officer stops without reasonable suspicion at 39% and 29%, respectively. The data show

only very modest improvement from the previous data reviews (where impermissible

stops were at 40-50%) and, in light of the over 200,000 pedestrian stops for 2014, tens of

thousands of persons in Philadelphia continue to be stopped each year without reasonable

suspicion. Thus, close to four years from the entry of the Settlement Agreement in this

case, the City has clearly failed to achieve substantial compliance with the provisions

requiring reasonable suspicion for stops of pedestrians.

2. We have also found that 39% of all frisks were made without reasonable

suspicion and an additional 14% were made in cases where the stop itself was not

supported by reasonable suspicion (“fruit of the poisonous tree”). The PPD audits for this

period show much lower rates of frisks without reasonable suspicion (5% and 3%,

respectively, for the first two quarters of 2014).

Given the large discrepancies in this data analysis, to demonstrate the validity of

our findings, we attach a spread-sheet of the relevant data for frisks for these two

quarters. See Exhibit A. The spread-sheet includes the D.C. number, the reasons for the

stop and the frisk, and our findings on the legality of the frisks (y=with reasonable

suspicion; n=without reasonable suspicion; x=a search and not a frisk; f=fruit of the

poisonous tree). This data and analysis shows that the City has not achieved substantial


18

compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement that require reasonable

suspicion that a suspect be armed and dangerous as a basis for a frisk.

3. As with the data for 2011-2013, the number of reported frisks is quite low,

with only 17% of stops recording a frisk (and an additional 6% resulting in a search). To

be clear, we do not suggest that the police should conduct frisks where there are no legal

grounds for such action. But we do strongly believe that officers have not been reporting

all frisks. For example, in stops based on suspicion of gun possession or a violent crime,

the police frequently report no frisk of the suspect. Of the 211 stops in which guns or

gun-related activity are referenced as a basis for the stop, there were no frisks recorded on

80 stops, or 38% of the total. It is simply not plausible to suggest that frisks are not being

conducted in these situations.

4. The very low “hit-rate” of stops and frisks is further cause for serious concern.

Contraband of any kind was recovered in only 58 stops (2.5 % of all stops) and 5 guns

were seized (0.2 % of all stops), but 3 of these seizures were the result of searches, not

frisks. Arrests occurred in 7.5% of all stops, excluding arrests made on probable cause

even before a stop or frisk was conducted. These hit-rates continue to be far below what

one would expect if stops and frisks were being conducted with reasonable suspicion.

We recognize that some legitimate stops are not likely to disclose contraband or lead to

an arrest and given the high rate of stops and frisks without reasonable suspicion, it is not

surprising that contraband is infrequently recovered in those incidents.

The best metric for determining whether these police interventions are justified is

one that determines the hit-rate for frisks, and whether weapons (or other contraband) are

seized. Police officers must have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and


19

dangerous before a frisk can be conducted. Thus, we would expect that seizure of

weapons or other contraband would be made in a significant number of these cases if the

officers are accurately reporting facts that establish reasonable suspicion. Yet, the rate of

recovery is vanishingly small. Overall, of 433 frisks, only 2 firearms were seized and

contraband other than weapons was seized in only 19 other frisks. Thus, in over 95% of

all frisks, no evidence was seized. And the real number is likely even higher given the

fact that police reported no frisks in 80 stops involving violent crimes or reports of

weapons. And even more telling, if we limit our analysis to cases in where police

reported that the suspect was armed or involved in a violent crime, a weapon was seized

in a frisk in only 2 cases.

Moreover, the data raise serious questions regarding the justifications for many

frisks. Most frisk reports assert that the suspect has a “bulge” in a pocket, refuses to take

his hands out of his pockets, does not cooperate with police, or that the stop was based on

a report of a gun or violent crime. “Bulges” inevitably turn out to be cell phones and the

other triggering factors are very weak indicators of criminal activity. Thus, in 78 cases in

which police conducted a frisk based on a “bulge,” a weapon was detected in only 1 case.

The fact that so few frisks lead to the recovery of a weapon raises serious questions as to

whether the police are accurately reporting what they observe and whether the reasons

generally provided for frisks are appropriate proxies for weapon possession.

5. Reduction in the number of stops and frisks (and particularly those conducted

without reasonable suspicion) does not create a risk to public safety. For example, New

York City has reported a huge reduction in the number of stops and a decrease in violent

crime, and in particular homicides. New York City reported 700,000 stops per year in


20

2011, but was on target for approximately 50,000 stops in 2014. See Washington Post,

December 3, 2014. By contrast, in a City with a population one-fifth that of New York

City, Philadelphia police made over 200,000 pedestrian stops in 2014. In 2009, a year

before this case was filed, there were 253,000 pedestrian stops.

6. Analyzing improper stops and frisks by category, the results were quite

similar to those for 2013. As we have reported to the City, there continue to be significant

numbers of stops for conduct which the Agreement and case law make clear are not

justifiable grounds for stops or frisks. These include:

loitering (or persons hanging out; congregating)4

investigation of passenger in stopped car

person involved in a disturbance

single person “obstructing” the sidewalk

anonymous information (e.g., man with gun; man with drugs)

person on steps of or near “abandoned” property

person involved in verbal dispute (non-domestic)5

high crime area/roll call complaints

panhandling

suspicion of narcotics activity

As for frisks, problematic grounds include:

frisk for officer protection

4 The PPD has instructed officers that “loitering” is not a valid basis for a stop. And while the

number of such stops has decreased, the PPD has recognized that officers are using other vague narratives

(e.g., blocking buildings) to justify stops. PPD, September 6, 2013 Audit.

5 We credit reports of “domestic” disputes.


21

frisk based on narcotics investigation

frisk because suspect stopped in high crime or high drug area

Moreover, as discussed above, given the extraordinarily low rate of recovery of weapons

or any contraband in frisk cases, there is good reason to believe that none of the factors

cited as establishing reasonable suspicion are good indicators of a person in possession of

a weapon.

7. We provide a more detailed analysis of racial disproportionality in the next

section, but as the stop and frisk data presented above shows, there is evidence of

disproportionate stops and frisks of minorities not explainable by factors other than race.

For example, in examining the differences by race of stops with and without reasonable

suspicion, White suspects are being stopped less frequently than minorities where no

reasonable suspicion is stated, indicating that a higher factual threshold is being applied

for stops of White suspects.

8. Although the reasons for the continued high rates of impermissible stops and

frisks are likely the result of several factors, we believe that the primary cause at this

point is the lack of accountability of officers and their immediate supervisors. There is

substantial agreement between the parties that the rate of stops without reasonable

suspicion continues to exceed 30% and plaintiffs’ analysis shows that the rate of frisks

without reasonable suspicion is even higher. The City reports that the PPD has retrained

all officers and has provided specific instructions to officers as to the proper grounds for

stops and frisks. In these circumstances, the failure of the PPD to hold officers

accountable is unacceptable. We have requested notice of any new accountability

measures, but there has been no response by the City on this front. Without strong


22

accountability measures, the high level of violations of constitutional rights will likely

continue.


23

III. Racial Analysis of Stop and Frisk Practices, January-June, 2014

A. Introduction

This section sets forth a statistical analysis of the “Stop and Frisk” practices of the

PPD for the first half of 2014, conducted by plaintiffs’ expert, Professor David Abrams.

The benchmarks to be used in the analysis were described in detail in a Memorandum dated

November 9, 2011 and updated in 2014. See Exhibit B.

In creating benchmarks to measure compliance of the PPD with the terms of the

Agreement, we considered several criteria. First, the benchmarks are designed to be

straightforward in terms of computation and interpretation. Second, they are designed

to measure characteristics at the core of the Agreement, namely compliance with the

Fourteenth Amendment. Third, they consider other potential explanations for patterns in

the data beyond suspect race. The benchmarks are based on a combination of those

discussed and used in NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, academic literature on the topic,

and those used recently in other jurisdictions, as described in Plaintiffs’ Second Report.

In Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F.Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the court

engaged in an intensive analysis of competing benchmarks submitted by the plaintiffs and

the City in the New York City class action stop and frisk litigation. The court credited

the approach of plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Jeffrey Fagan (Columbia Law School) who

examined data on all stops in New York City from 2004 through 2009. Professor Fagan

used a regression technique similar to that detailed in the benchmarks that have been

adopted by the parties in Bailey. Professor Fagan considered the impact of the racial

composition of a district on the likelihood of being stopped, arrested, or issued a citation.

Additional outcomes included gun and other weapon seizures, and contraband seizures.


24

Professor Fagan controlled for various district characteristics, including age composition,

racial composition, crime complaints, police patrol strength, socioeconomic status,

population, foreign born population, business district status, and time controls. The

benchmarks in this case, as reflected in this Report, use many of the benchmarks credited

by the Floyd court.

B. Summary of the Racial Aspects of the Stop and Frisk Data

We examined data from Q1 and Q2 2014 pedestrian stops. The sample dataset

includes 2,523 total pedestrian stops.6 The median age of a detainee is 29 and 84% of

detainees are male. Figure 1. Blacks account for 72% of those stopped, Whites comprise

20%, and 9% are Latinos. Compared to 2012, Black stop share has increased by 3

percentage points, while the White stop share has decreased by 3 percentage points.

Minorities account for an even higher share of individuals frisked, of which 79%

are Black, 10% Latino and 11% White. The number of stops varies substantially by

district, with the 25th, encompassing Hunting Park and other parts of North Philadelphia,

accounting for the most, with 9%. See Figure 2. As in 2011 and 2012, the fewest

stops are in the 5th

police district which includes Roxborough, accounting for less than

1% of all stops.

Table 1 reports stop, frisk, and arrest rates for pedestrian stops broken down by

race. Approximately 19% of stops of Black and Latino suspects lead to a frisk,

considerably higher than the 10% rate for Whites.

6 As in past reports, we are proceeding on a district-level analysis, rather than at the “sector” (“PSA”) level, due to the fact that not all of the control variables were made available at the PSA level. District level analysis should not materially impact the statistical analysis. We will move to PSA-level analysis as soon as all of the data is available at this level of aggregation.


25

Blacks and Latinos are also searched at a higher rate than Whites, 6.0% and 6.9%,

respectively versus 4.1%, although the search rate of minorities dropped relative to 2012.

It is possible that the increase in the frisk rate and decline in the search rate is due to

anomalies in police reporting. We have attempted to identify cases in which police record

a “frisk,” but which under the circumstances was clearly a search (e.g., incident to arrest),

but that process is not perfect and is evolving with the implementation of the new

electronic database.

The 2014 arrest rates were 6.0% for Blacks, 8.8% for Latinos, and 4.9% for

Whites. However, as discussed in previous reports, plaintiffs and the City agree that

arrest rates are not a good measure of the legality of stops and frisks since the decision to

arrest is highly discretionary (e.g., where a person may be acting in a disorderly fashion,

has an open liquor container, or is stopped on suspicion of curfew or truancy violations).

Further, to determine whether the arrest rates are related to improper racial

considerations, a more precise analysis of the reasons for the stops by race would be

necessary.

C. Benchmark Applications

1. Stops, Census and Regression Analysis

The question of whether race is impermissibly used as a factor in the decision to

stop and frisk cannot be answered by a simple comparison of stop and frisk rates to

census data. Non-racial factors may explain the disparities. However, the stop

rate/census comparison is the first step in this process. As set forth in Table 1, the stop

rate by race in comparison to the census is as follows:


26

Black stops=72%; Black census=43.4%

White stops=20%; White census=41%

Latino stops=9%; Latino census=12.3%

The next step is a cross-district comparison of stop rates by Black/Minority

population share. A racial disparity in stops should be expected based on differences in

population composition. It is possible to examine variation in the share of Black and

Latino stops by district, as reported in Tables 2A and 2B, respectively. Each row in the

tables represents a district (column 1) and the tables are sorted by the Black or minority

share of the population in the district, as reflected in column 2. The third column reports

the share of stops that are of Black/minority pedestrians and the fourth is the ratio of

Black/minority stops to Black/minority population share. Note that in all districts, Blacks

and minorities account for a higher share of stops than they do in the population; in some

districts, they are stopped at a rate over 5 times their share of the population. Thus, in the

7th

Police District, where the population is 5% Black, 25% of the stops were of Blacks

and in the 9th

District where the population is 11% Black, 69% of the stops were of

Blacks. By contrast, in the 22d Police District, where Blacks make up 89% of the

population, the ratio of stops by race was close to a 1:1 ratio.

The last three columns report characteristics based on the census population of the

district, not just minorities. The fifth column provides a measure of total stops to police

officers (not including higher ranked officers) to measure how stop rates per officer vary

across district by Black/minority population share. There is substantial variation across

districts in the ratio of stops to officers. The correlation between average stops per officer


27

and minority stop share is over 0.5, which means that districts where police officers make

more stops also tend to stop a higher share of minorities. Of course, this is only a

correlation and a more precise analysis is provided by the regression analysis set forth

below.

The final two columns in Tables 2A and 2B report total stops per capita and the

violent crime rate in the district (violent crimes per 1,000 residents). The correlation

between stops per capita and the minority share of stops is also approximately 0.5

indicating that minorities constitute a higher fraction of those stopped in districts with a

high stop rate. Again, regression analysis is necessary to determine whether the violent

crime rates in these districts explains the extent of the differences.

To address non-racial influences, we next move to a multivariate regression

analysis. This approach is more robust than a comparison of averages because it

examines the relationship among multiple variables simultaneously. To determine the

impact of suspect race on the likelihood of a stop or frisk, we controlled for factors that

include the demographic makeup and crime rate of the neighborhood.

First, we add data collected from the U.S. Census as well as Uniform Crime

Report data on reported crimes, by district. We begin by examining differences in overall

stop rates by race in Table 3. This table (and tables 4, 7, 8 and 10) share the same

format: each column in the table reports results from a separate regression that identifies

the relationship between the variables listed in the first column and the dependent

variable. For example, regression 2 can be written as:

(1) 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 + 𝛽2𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 + 𝛽3𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝜖

Stop Rate is the number of stops in the sample examined per 10,000 residents in a district


28

and Black is coded 0 if the detainee is White and 1 if the detainee is Black. Similarly,

Hispanic is coded 1 if the detainee is Latino and zero otherwise. Age is the detainee’s age

in years. By including 3 variables in the equation, this regression can better isolate the

impact of race and Latino identity on the likelihood of being stopped, even if age is an

important factor in stop rate. The coefficient on Black found in column 2 is 11.31, which

means that in the sample about 11.3 more Black individuals were stopped than White

individuals for every 10,000 residents of a district. The standard errors are reported in

parentheses below the coefficient and the double stars on the standard error indicates that

this result is statistically significant at better than the 1% level. This means that there is

less than a 1% chance that the difference in stop rates between Blacks and Whites is zero.

At first blush, 11.3 extra stops per 10,000 residents, out of more than 200,000

annual stops in Philadelphia, may not seem significant. The 2010 Census counted

1,526,006 residents of Philadelphia, so this would translate to a difference of 1,724 stops

city-wide in the first two quarters of 2014. But these numbers are from the randomly

selected sample of all stops. In order to determine the total difference we must adjust for

the share of overall stops included in the sample. The total number of pedestrian stops in

the first half of 2014 was approximately 107,000 and, therefore, the expected disparity in

annual stops citywide is approximately 73,600 or 34% of the total annual stops.

There may be reasons other than race that minorities are stopped at higher rates.

For example, if minorities tend to be younger on average, since more crime is committed

by younger individuals, one might expect a higher stop rate for minorities. We controlled

for this factor (as in equation 1 above) and others relevant to this issue. Column 2 in

Table 3 controls for detainee age and adds Latino identity. Column 3 controls for the


29

district racial composition as well as the share of the male population under 24 years of

age. Even after adding these controls, the coefficient on Detainee Black (8.482) is still

similar to what it was with no controls. The 4th

column includes a control for whether

flash information led to the stop, which does not have a statistically significant influence

on the stop rate. Column 5 adds the district racial composition as well as employment rate

to the regression. Since poor economic conditions are associated with higher crime,

higher stop rates could be explained by low employment rates, but here the impact is not

statistically significant.

The final four columns add different controls for district crime rates. The crime

rates are based on crimes reported to the police (not arrests) in 2013. It is preferable to

use lagged crime because current crime levels could be influenced by policing policies.

In each case, districts with higher crime rates have more stops, but controlling for crime

rates does not affect the influence of detainee race on stop rate.

Another potential explanation for higher stop rates of minorities is that they

commit crimes at higher rates. Addressing this concern raises several challenges. First,

we do not have accurate data as to crime rates by race. There is arrest data, but even if

arrest data was an accurate measure of crime rates by race, an issue we discuss below, we

would need this breakdown on a district by district (or sector by sector) basis to engage in

the proper statistical analysis, and this information was not available.

Second, there is a methodological problem: arrest rates are not independent of

stop rates; that is, they are not an unbiased measure of crime. Higher stop rates of one

group will almost certainly lead to higher arrest rates. Thus, as we explained in Plaintiffs’

Third and Fourth Reports to the Court, patterns of police enforcement have far more to


30

say about the racial breakdown of persons arrested for drugs than actual drug use or

possession by race. This is not to say that arrest rates are solely a function of

enforcement, but that the measure is almost certainly a function of stop rates.

Third, there is a legal problem with using crime rates by race to explain disparities

in stop rates: as a matter of Equal Protection doctrine, race is an impermissible factor to

use when making stops, absent a racial description of a suspect. Thus, even if

race-specific crime rates were available, it may not make sense to use them as controls in

the regressions. See, Floyd v. City of New York, supra. Even in high crime areas, the

commission of crimes is by relatively few persons and therefore it is problematic to

justify higher rates of stops in these communities based on a kind of group-actuarial

basis.

Table 4 is analogous to Table 3, but it reports the results of a regression of the rate

of pedestrian frisks (rather than stops) on detainee race and various controls. In each

regression, the coefficient on Detainee Black is statistically significantly different from

zero and ranges from about 0.075 – 0.095. This regression shows that the frisk rate for

Black detainees is 7.5– 9.5 percentage points higher than for Whites. Since the pedestrian

frisk rate for Whites is 9.7%, this translates to an increased likelihood of 75% to almost

100% that Black detainees are frisked, relative to Whites. Including the control variables,

such as age, district demographic variables, or crime rates, makes the result even more

robust.

2. Reasonable Suspicion for Stops and Frisks: Racial Analysis

As the Plaintiffs’ previous Reports and Section II of this Report demonstrate, a

substantial number of the pedestrian stops do not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.


31

For the first six months of 2014, 37% of the stops were made without reasonable

suspicion (see Table 5). While an improvement of 6 percentage points from 2013, this

rate of stops without reasonable suspicion is unacceptably high. Further, while we

found that the share of frisks without reasonable suspicion declined from 55% in 2012 to

52% in 2014 (see Table 6), that rate is also far too high.

To inform the Fourteenth Amendment analysis we considered whether the number

of stops lacking reasonable suspicion varied by race or Latino identity. Table 5 shows

significant variation by race in the share of stops lacking reasonable suspicion, which

ranged from 32% for Whites to 39% for Blacks to 41% for Latinos. There is a 29%

higher unfounded stop rate for Latinos and 21% higher for Blacks relative to Whites.

The impact of detainee race on unfounded stop rates is explored in more detail below, by

using regression analysis. There is also variation by race in unfounded frisk rates, see

Table 6, with 50% of frisks of Blacks, 64% of Latinos and 60% of Whites lacking

reasonable suspicion. However, regression analysis reveals that these differences are not

statistically significant, largely due to the small sample size.

On the issue of race and reasonable suspicion for pedestrian stops, each column in

Table 7 reports the results from a separate regression. In each regression the variable of

interest is Detainee Black and various control variables are added in the different

columns. In most of the columns the coefficient on Detainee Black is between -.05 and

-.08 indicating that reasonable suspicion was found in 5 to 8 percentage points fewer

cases when the detainee was black, and these differences are statistically significant.

Thus, while the overall rate of unfounded stops is high for Whites at 32%, the unfounded

rate is higher for Blacks, even when controlling for an array of potentially relevant


32

characteristics. This means that the disparity in unfounded stops cannot be explained by

differences in district demographics, crime rates, economic conditions, or other control

variables, and thus strongly suggests that race is the underlying reason for the disparities.

Table 8 is similar to Table 7 and describes regressions about the rate of reasonable

suspicion, but now for a frisk rather than a stop. The coefficient on Detainee Black ranges

from about .06 to .09, but none of these coefficients are statistically significant. Overall

there is little evidence that there are significant disparities in the rates of unfounded

frisks, although this is largely due to the less precise estimates due to the smaller sample

size. This holds true when examining Latino identity as well, where the results are

statistically indistinguishable from Whites in this and the other regression analyses.

3. Hit-Rate Analysis

An important measure of the propriety of stops and particularly of frisks is the

rate at which they lead to the discovery of contraband, and particularly weapons, since

frisks are permitted only where the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is armed

and dangerous. Moreover, seizures of weapons are often cited as justification for a robust

stop and frisk program. The rates of discovery of contraband from frisks are reported in

Table 9. Contraband is categorized as firearms, other weapons, drugs, or other. “Other” is

not included in the table as it is a less significant event, consisting either of small

amounts of cash or unspecified materials.

Table 9 reports an overall detection rate for firearms that is extremely low, with fewer

than 1 in 200 pedestrian frisks yielding a firearm. There were a few other weapons

discovered as well, but they raise the overall rate of detection of weapons to only 0.92%.


33

Table 9 reports results of a basic hit-rate analysis by race and Latino identity (with

no control variables). None of the frisks of Whites in the sample yielded firearms and

only 1 of the 47 frisks yielded other weapons. By comparison 0.58% of frisks of Blacks

yielded firearms (a total of 2) and 0.29% yielded other weapons (1 other weapon).

Table 10 is a more sophisticated approach to the firearms hit-rate analysis. The

regressions report the rate of discovery of a firearm in pedestrian frisks. None of the

coefficients on Detainee Black or Detainee Hispanic are statistically significant, but this

is likely due to the fact that firearms are very rarely discovered.

Drugs were detected in about 1 in 60 frisks. By racial category, drugs were

discovered in 1.75% of frisks of Black pedestrians, 2.13% of Whites, and in no frisks of

Latinos. Thus, there does not appear to be any evidence from frisk results to suggest

that minorities possess drugs more frequently than Whites; indeed, the data points in the

opposite direction. Further, although suspicion of drug activity may be grounds for a stop,

a frisk may not be undertaken in a search for drugs and many of the “stops” for

narcotics-related conduct that are recorded by police are actually arrests based on

probable cause (e.g., observed drug transactions).

4. Marijuana Arrests

In previous Reports to the Court, plaintiffs have analyzed arrest data to determine

whether there were racial disparities in cases involving small amounts of marijuana.

The data from 2011, 2012 and 2013 were strikingly similar, showing that for these

arrests, Blacks and Latinos accounted for over 90% of those charged. As we have

previously asserted, these rates are not explainable by patterns of use or possession of

marijuana as all reliable data shows that Blacks and Whites use and possess marijuana at


34

approximately the same rate.

Philadelphia City Council recently found that “minorities are disproportionately

impacted by the enforcement of marijuana laws, with African Americans 5.19 times more

likely to be arrested for [possession of marijuana] in Philadelphia than Caucasians despite

evidence showing nearly identical use across both communities.”1 City Council enacted

an Ordinance which provides that possession of under 30 grams of marijuana is to be

treated as a Civil Code Violation punishable by a small fine and, in most circumstances,

the offender is not subject to arrest and prosecution. Mayor Nutter signed the Ordinance,

effective as of October 20, 2014. In light of this significant development, we have agreed

with the City to postpone further review of the data on police enforcement of this

Ordinance pending implementation of new protocols. The City will provide data on

marijuana arrests and Civil Code Violations for the period February-April, 2015 and we

will analyze the data in Plaintiffs’ Sixth Report.

5. Commentary

We have examined the relationship of race to stop and frisk practices from multiple

perspectives, following standard statistical theories. It is significant that on the key

benchmarks that provide the most reliable measures of racial bias—regression analysis,

comparisons of stops without reasonable suspicion by race, and hit rate analysis—there is

strong evidence that the large difference in stop and frisk rates by race in Philadelphia are

not explained by non-racial factors. To the contrary, the data show statistically

significant racial disparities that are not fully explainable by non-racial factors.

1 Philadelphia Code, Chapter 10-2100.


35

Figure 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fre

que

ncy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Age

Distribution of Stops by Age


36

Figure 2


Table 1

Number of Stops Stop Share Number of Frisks Frisk Share Stops with Frisks Stops with Searches Stops with Arrests

Black 1,803 71.5% 342 79.4% 19.4% 6.0% 6.0%

Latino 222 8.8% 42 9.7% 19.4% 6.9% 8.8%

White 498 19.7% 47 10.9% 9.7% 4.1% 4.9%

STOPS, FRISKS, SEARCHES AND ARRESTS BY RACE, PEDESTRIAN STOPS


38

Table 2A

District

Black

Population

Share

Black

Stop

Share

Black Stop

Share/Black

Population

Share

Total Stops/

Officer

Total Stops

per capita

Violent

Crimes per

1,000

population

22 89% 93% 1.0 81 0.29 2319 85% 96% 1.1 60 0.12 1112 84% 92% 1.1 53 0.13 1616 80% 97% 1.2 70 0.26 17

39 79% 96% 1.2 60 0.14 1514 77% 96% 1.2 91 0.15 1035 73% 90% 1.2 68 0.11 1318 64% 98% 1.5 76 0.15 1217 60% 89% 1.5 90 0.26 1325 34% 57% 1.7 103 0.29 211 34% 71% 2.1 80 0.20 82 26% 63% 2.4 64 0.08 7

26 25% 38% 1.5 76 0.20 1524 23% 24% 1.0 102 0.24 1815 22% 57% 2.6 58 0.08 116 21% 67% 3.3 80 0.27 148 12% 31% 2.7 35 0.03 39 11% 69% 6.2 95 0.24 83 10% 37% 3.5 61 0.13 95 5% 26% 5.1 20 0.04 3

7 5% 25% 5.5 29 0.03 3

District Level Analysis - Black Stops


39

Table 2B

District

Minority

Population

Share

Minority

Stop

Share

Minority Stop

Share/Minority

Population

Share

Total Stops/

Officer

Total Stops

per capita

Violent

Crimes per

1,000

population

22 91% 93% 1.0 82 0.30 23

12 89% 91% 1.0 53 0.14 1619 86% 97% 1.1 60 0.12 1116 85% 98% 1.2 70 0.26 1735 85% 93% 1.1 69 0.12 1339 81% 97% 1.2 60 0.14 1514 79% 96% 1.2 91 0.15 1018 73% 98% 1.3 76 0.15 1217 69% 90% 1.3 91 0.27 1325 51% 87% 1.7 105 0.29 211 46% 69% 1.5 82 0.20 82 44% 71% 1.6 66 0.08 7

26 38% 64% 1.7 78 0.20 1524 36% 53% 1.5 102 0.24 18

6 35% 71% 2.0 81 0.27 143 31% 41% 1.3 66 0.14 9

15 29% 67% 2.3 58 0.08 119 23% 72% 3.1 97 0.24 88 19% 32% 1.7 37 0.03 37 19% 30% 1.6 30 0.03 35 9% 24% 2.7 22 0.05 3

District Level Analysis - Minority Stops

* Minority is defined as Black or Latino (or both)


40

Table 3

VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Detainee Black 9.924 11.31 8.482 11.20 8.689 7.429 7.931 7.390(2.801)** (2.744)** (3.312)* (2.713)** (3.278)* (3.159)* (3.131)* (3.174)*

Detainee Hispanic 9.239 12.76 -1.080 12.90 0.387 -4.435 -2.295 -4.626(8.696) (8.444) (12.63) (8.346) (12.54) (12.08) (11.96) (12.15)

Detainee Age 0.568 0.352 0.557 0.304 0.0189 0.101 0.0161(0.257)* (0.288) (0.254)* (0.287) (0.302) (0.288) (0.305)

District Asian share 24.19 34.82 26.49 30.88 26.03(35.29) (35.79) (34.13) (34.02) (34.27)

District Black share 13.83 13.53 8.567 3.378 9.787(7.966) (7.880) (7.805) (8.840) (7.692)

District Hispanic share 25.85 20.47 13.46 4.378 15.52(15.33) (15.68) (15.20) (16.66) (15.09)

Male population under 24 -24.78 -66.83 -39.89 -48.87 -39.38(20.84) (37.68) (37.78) (36.72) (38.06)

Flash Information -14.60(10.59)

Employment Rate -55.36 -48.22 -32.38 -51.58(41.54) (39.49) (40.84) (39.52)

Overall Crime Rate 0.0139(0.00636)*

Violent Crime Rate 0.0830(0.0386)*

Property Crime Rate 0.0159(0.00747)*

Constant 3.288 -16.59 -7.484 -14.07 31.34 25.86 19.55 27.31(2.487) (9.297) (11.54) (9.369) (31.28) (29.75) (30.19) (29.79)

Observations 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42R-squared 0.263 0.347 0.408 0.379 0.439 0.511 0.510 0.508

Pedestrian Stops

Standard errors in parentheses , ** p<0.01, * p<0.05


41

Table 4

VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Detainee Black 0.0933 0.0902 0.0799 0.0854 0.0777 0.0779 0.0777 0.0780

(0.0185)** (0.0184)** (0.0206)** (0.0179)** (0.0206)** (0.0207)** (0.0207)** (0.0207)**

Detainee Hispanic 0.0961 0.0893 0.0365 0.0755 0.0365 0.0370 0.0362 0.0372

(0.0271)** (0.0270)** (0.0282) (0.0262)** (0.0282) (0.0283) (0.0282) (0.0283)

Detainee Age -0.00345 -0.00336 -0.00295 -0.00328 -0.00325 -0.00329 -0.00325

(0.000579)** (0.000578)** (0.000564)** (0.000579)** (0.000582)** (0.000581)** (0.000582)**

District Asian share 0.374 0.0926 0.110 0.0793 0.116

(0.272) (0.298) (0.301) (0.300) (0.301)

District Black share 0.101 0.0915 0.0951 0.0828 0.0948

(0.0618) (0.0619) (0.0627) (0.0666) (0.0623)

District Hispanic share 0.275 0.314 0.318 0.302 0.317

(0.0810)** (0.0826)** (0.0833)** (0.0891)** (0.0829)**

Male population under 24 0.173 0.728 0.682 0.764 0.666

(0.144) (0.278)** (0.303)* (0.296)** (0.304)*

Flash Information 0.264

(0.0217)**

Employment Rate 0.724 0.686 0.785 0.682

(0.310)* (0.325)* (0.354)* (0.321)*

Overall Crime Rate -0.000167

(0.000443)

Violent Crime Rate 0.000977

(0.00278)

Property Crime Rate -0.000261

(0.000516)

Constant 0.0982 0.215 0.0505 0.168 -0.425 -0.389 -0.468 -0.380

(0.0165)** (0.0255)** (0.0492) (0.0251)** (0.209)* (0.230) (0.242) (0.228)

Observations 2,461 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456 2,456

R-squared 0.011 0.025 0.042 0.081 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044

Pedestrian Frisks



42

Table 5

Table 6

# % # % # % # %

Yes 1,579 62.6% 1109 61.5% 131 59.0% 339 68.1%

No 944 37.4% 694 38.5% 91 41.0% 159 31.9%

REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR PEDESTRIAN STOP BY RACE

All Black WhiteLatino

# % # % # % # %

Yes 205 47.6% 171 50.0% 15 35.7% 19 40.4%

No 226 52.4% 171 50.0% 27 64.3% 28 59.6%

LatinoAll Black White

REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR PEDESTRIAN FRISK BY RACE


43

Table 7

VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Detainee Black -0.0558 -0.0524 -0.0716 -0.0522 -0.0747 -0.0746 -0.0747 -0.0745

(0.0234)* (0.0234)* (0.0263)** (0.0234)* (0.0263)** (0.0264)** (0.0263)** (0.0264)**

Detainee Hispanic -0.0571 -0.0501 -0.0170 -0.0493 -0.0169 -0.0166 -0.0172 -0.0164

(0.0343) (0.0343) (0.0361) (0.0343) (0.0361) (0.0361) (0.0361) (0.0361)

Detainee Age 0.00293 0.00282 0.00290 0.00294 0.00295 0.00292 0.00296

(0.000736)** (0.000739)** (0.000738)** (0.000740)** (0.000743)** (0.000742)** (0.000743)**

District Asian share 0.345 -0.0487 -0.0389 -0.0608 -0.0343

(0.348) (0.379) (0.383) (0.382) (0.383)

District Black share 0.119 0.105 0.107 0.0971 0.107

(0.0791) (0.0792) (0.0801) (0.0851) (0.0796)

District Hispanic share -0.0227 0.0320 0.0343 0.0208 0.0339

(0.103) (0.105) (0.106) (0.114) (0.106)

Male pop. under 24 -0.329 0.458 0.432 0.491 0.420

(0.183) (0.354) (0.386) (0.376) (0.386)

Flash Information -0.0159

(0.0283)

Employment Rate 1.023 1.001 1.080 0.997

(0.394)** (0.413)* (0.449)* (0.408)*

Overall Crime Rate -9.71e-06

(5.64e-05)

Violent Crime Rate 9.29e-05

(0.000354)

Property Crime Rate -1.64e-05

(6.58e-05)

Constant 0.672 0.573 0.640 0.576 -0.0325 -0.0115 -0.0728 -0.00417

(0.0209)** (0.0324)** (0.0625)** (0.0328)** (0.266) (0.293) (0.307) (0.289)

Observations 2,519 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514 2,514

R-squared 0.002 0.009 0.014 0.009 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016

Reasonable Suspicion for Pedestrian Stop



44

Table 8

VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Detainee Black 0.0861 0.0810 0.0670 0.0755 0.0626 0.0633 0.0716 0.0615

(0.0698) (0.0705) (0.0756) (0.0706) (0.0757) (0.0767) (0.0764) (0.0767)


(0.0846) (0.0849) (0.0870) (0.0851) (0.0869) (0.0871) (0.0870) (0.0870)

Detainee Age -0.00109 -0.00118 -0.00100 -0.00116 -0.00116 -0.00107 -0.00117

(0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00208) (0.00209) (0.00209) (0.00209)

District Asian share 0.793 0.101 0.0869 -0.0654 0.123

(0.870) (1.036) (1.063) (1.054) (1.064)

District Black share -0.0311 -0.0646 -0.0655 -0.128 -0.0643

(0.192) (0.194) (0.195) (0.207) (0.195)

District Hispanic share -0.375 -0.323 -0.321 -0.374 -0.327

(0.244) (0.248) (0.249) (0.255) (0.252)

Male population under 24 0.218 1.273 1.305 1.700 1.225

(0.512) (1.001) (1.128) (1.114) (1.125)

Flash Information 0.0685

(0.0519)

Employment Rate 1.305 1.344 2.184 1.252

(1.063) (1.248) (1.466) (1.208)

Overall Crime Rate 1.11e-05

(0.000183)

Violent Crime Rate 0.000985

(0.00113)


(0.000213)

Constant 0.417 0.453 0.413 0.435 -0.444 -0.476 -1.039 -0.397

(0.0662)**(0.0963)** (0.178)* (0.0973)** (0.721) (0.899) (0.993) (0.876)

Observations 431 431 431 431 431 431 431 431

R-squared 0.011 0.012 0.035 0.016 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.038

Reasonable Suspicion for Pedestrian Frisk



45

Table 9

All Black Latino White

Firearms 0.46% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Weapons 0.46% 0.29% 0.00% 2.13%

Drugs 1.62% 1.75% 0.00% 2.13%

Any 5.10% 5.84% 0.00% 4.26%

DISCOVERY OF CONTRABAND BY RACE, PEDESTRIAN FRISKS


46

Table 10

VARIABLES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Detainee Black 0.00490 0.00394 0.00437 0.00451 0.00411 0.00373 0.00345 0.00380

(0.00954) (0.00964) (0.0104) (0.00966) (0.0105) (0.0106) (0.0106) (0.0106)


(0.0116) (0.0116) (0.0120) (0.0116) (0.0120) (0.0120) (0.0120) (0.0120)

Detainee Age -0.000201 -0.000191 -0.000210 -0.000190 -0.000193 -0.000197 -0.000192

(0.000285) (0.000288) (0.000286) (0.000288) (0.000289) (0.000289) (0.000289)

District Asian share 0.133 0.0921 0.0998 0.104 0.0983

(0.120) (0.143) (0.147) (0.146) (0.147)

District Black share -0.00516 -0.00713 -0.00664 -0.00245 -0.00704

(0.0266) (0.0268) (0.0270) (0.0287) (0.0269)

District Hispanic share -0.0122 -0.00915 -0.0100 -0.00536 -0.0103

(0.0337) (0.0342) (0.0345) (0.0352) (0.0348)

Male pop. under 24 0.0453 0.107 0.0901 0.0755 0.0937

(0.0707) (0.138) (0.156) (0.154) (0.155)

Flash Information -0.00701

(0.00710)

Employment Rate 0.0765 0.0550 0.0113 0.0615

(0.147) (0.172) (0.203) (0.167)

Overall Crime Rate -6.01e-05

(0.000253)

Violent Crime Rate -0.000730

(0.00156)


(0.000295)

Constant 0.00103 0.00777 -0.0130 0.00968 -0.0633 -0.0456 -0.0192 -0.0502

(0.00906) (0.0132) (0.0246) (0.0133) (0.0996) (0.124) (0.137) (0.121)

Observations 431 431 431 431 431 431 431 431

R-squared 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.005 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009

Firearm Recovered



47

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David Rudovsky, Esquire

/s/ Paul Messing, Esquire

Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, LLP

718 Arch Street, Suite 501S

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 925-4400

/s/ Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire

ACLU of Pennsylvania

PO Box 40008


/s/ Seth Kreimer, Esquire

University of Pennsylvania Law School

3900 Chestnut Street


Counsel for Plaintiffs7

7 Counsel express their appreciation to a number of volunteer lawyers and law students who have donated

hundreds of hours of time in this project. Special thanks to Jon Dilks who organized and structured the data

collection and student reviews.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mahari Bailey, et al., Plaintiffs C.A. No. 10-5952

v.

City of Philadelphia, et al., Defendants

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND CONSENT DECREE

I. Introduction

A. Plaintiffs' Claims

This class action was filed on Novem ber 4, 2010, and alleges that practices related to stops, frisks,

searches, and detentions by the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") violate the United States and

Pennsylvania Constitutions by (1) depriving class members of their rights to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania

Constitution where stops, frisks, or searches are made without the requisite reasonable suspicion or

probable cause, and (2) denying class members the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth

Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution where stops, detentions, frisks or searches are

impermissibly conducted on the basis of race or ethnic origin. Plaintiffs' claims are based on the facts

alleged by the individual named plaintiffs, data analyzed during the course of the litigation in NAACP v.

City of Philadelphia, C.A. No. 96-6045 (E.D. Pa.), and PPD data regarding stops and frisks in Philadelphia

for the years 2005-2009. Plaintiffs allege that the constitutional violations are systemic and result from

the failure of the PPD to properly train, supervise and discipline police officers with respect to these

practices. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the City has as a matter of policy Increased the number of

stop and frisks in Philadelphia, but has failed to properly monitor, audit or supervise these practices Since

the termination of the NAACP case in 2005, notwithstanding assurances that the City would continue to

monitor and supervise these practices.


B. The City's Response

The City of Philadelphia acknowledges that there has been an increase in the number of persons stopped

and frisked by the PPD in the period 2008-2010, but denies all allegations regarding systemic violation of

the rights of class members under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments or the Pennsylvania

Constitution, and the City further denies the legal and factual claims made by the plaintiffs. The City

asserts that PPD training on and supervision of stop and frisk practices is fully consistent with

constitutional standards and that there have not been violations of the constitutional rights of the

members of the plaintiff class. Specifically, the City asserts that its practices and procedures related to

stops, frisks, searches and detentions by the PPD are fully consistent with constitutional standards and

are made with the requisite reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause. In addition, the City denies that

the stops, frisks, searches and detentions are, in any way, conducted on the basis or racial or ethnic

origin in violation of individuals' constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the City, without admission of any

legal or factual claims made by the plaintiffs, agrees that there are appropriate measures that should be

implemented as a matter of City policy and practice to ensure that stops and frisks by the PPD are

conducted consistent with constitutional mandates.

C. Mutual Recognition of Principles

All parties to this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree recognize the need for (1) diligent law

enforcement in the City of Philadelphia, (2) the proper use and implementation of stop and frisk practices

and policies as instrumental in legitimate police practices, and (3) compliance with the requirements and

mandates of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and to Article I,

Sections 1 and 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Accordingly, the parties have agreed to the following binding provisions of this Settlement

Agreement, Class Certiflcation and Consent Decree ("Agreement'1.

2


II. Preliminary Discovery, Review of Current Stop and Frisk Practices, and Data Analysis

A. The City has agreed to provide the plaintiffs the following documents and data regarding stop and

frisk practices of the PPD:

1. 75-48a forms for the PPD for selected two week periods in the years 2006-2010.

2. PPD directives and related instructional and training materials governing stop and frisk policies and

practices, including information as to codes entered on the 75-48a forms.

3. Audits, reports, and data analysis prepared by or for the PPD for the period 2006 to the present

regarding stop and frisk practices and policies, including reports and audits prepared by Tern pie

University and the University of Pennsylvania.

4. PPD Compstat and Research and Planning data for the years 2006-2010 regarding (a) arrests, (b)

reported crime, and (c) seizures of contraband (guns and/or drugs) pursuant to stops and frisks.

5. Data regarding deployment of PPD officers by district and unit for the years 2006-2010.

6. The parties have also agreed to discuss other disclosures that may be appropriate for proper

assessment and monitoring of stop and frisk practices by the PPD.

B. The parties have agreed not to litigate the constitutionality of past stop and frisk practices, and they

enter into this Agreement to implement measures to ensure future compliance with constitutional

standards. The parties reserve the right to review and analyze 75-48a forms for the years 2006-2010.

C. No later than January 1, 2012, the PPD will begin entering all new 75-48a forms into an electronic

data base that provides the parties with access to digitized information that is sufficient to enable the

parties to conduct electronic data analysis with respect to legality of the stops and frisks. The data base

shall have the capability to retrieve information by DC number, district, date, race, officer's actions, and

other relevant characteristics necessary to effective monitoring of stop and frisk practices. To ensure that

this data base provides the necessary information regarding stops and frisks, the parties will confer on

the need for any changes to the 75-48a form and the design and structure of the electronic data base,

including the nature and scope of the information to be entered. If there are any unresolved differences

between the parties as to this process, the Court shall have the authority to enter an appropriate Order.

3


Further, the City shall train PPD officers with respect to the electronic data base system and their

responsibilities to record the relevant information for each stop and frisk.

D. The Plaintiffs and the City will review current PPD training, supervision, and discipline policies to

determine whether any changes are necessary or appropriate to ensure that stops are conducted only

where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and that frisks are made only where there is

reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and dangerous. Where appropriate, new

directives, regulations or other policy statements will be issued by the PPD, or ordered by the Court

pursuant to Sections IV(E) and (F).

E. Stops and frisks shall not be permissible, without limitation, where the officer has only anonymous

Information of criminal conduct, or because the person is only "loitering" or engaged in "furtive

movements," or is acting "suspiciously," or for the purpose of "investigation of person," or on the basis of

non-articulated "flash information," or only because the person is in a "high crime" or "high drug" area.

These restrictions are not exclusive and the parties agree that stops and frisks shall not be made without

the requisite reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution.

F. The City agrees to implement policies and practices to ensure that stops and frisks are not conducted

on the basis of the race or ethnic origin of the suspect, except where the law permits race or ethnic origin

to be considered in determining whether a person shall be stopped or frisked (e.g., where a suspect has

been described by his race).

G. By January 1, 2012 the City shall establish and enforce policies and procedures governing supervisory

review and audits on agreed upon periodic basis of stop and frisk practices that include (1) review by

police district or unit supervisors of selected 75-48a forms to determine whether they state legal grounds

for a stop or frisk, (2) reviews and audits by PPD supervisory officials of relevant data to determine

whether there are impermissible racial disparities in stops and frisks, (3) the establishment of triggering

thresholds for re-training, enhanced supervision, or discipline of officers who engage in unconstitutional

stops and frisks or who violate PPD policies or procedures governing these practices, and (4) department

wide audits and assessments of stop and frisk practices that include PPD stop and frisk documents,

4


civilian complaints, internal complaints, use of force forms and data, community surveys, and other

relevant PPD data or documentation. There shall be written documentation of all re-training, enhanced

supervision, or discipline of officers who are reviewed under the triggering thresholds. These reviews and

audits shall be made available to the parties, Monitor, and the Court.

Ill. Class Certification

The parties agree to the following Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P.:

All persons, including pedestrians and operators or passengers in motor vehicles, who were or will be stopped, frisked, detained and/or searched by Philadelphia police officers on or after November 4, 2008 without legal justification as required by the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution, or on legally impermissible considerations of race or national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.c. §2000(d).

IV. Monitoring and Compliance

A. By June 21, 2011, the Court shall appoint a Monitor after considering the recommendation(s) of the

parties. The Monitor shall have the authority to recommend to the parties and to the Court practices,

poliCies and other measures that are appropriate or necessary to ensure that PPD stop and frisk practices

and policies are in compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Pennsylvania

Constitution. The Monitor shall be provided with all relevant and necessary information, data analysis, and

documents and may conduct an independent analysis and review of stop and frisk practices as a basis

for the Monitor's Reports and Recommendations. The Monitor may seek the advice and assistance of

police practices and statistical experts in the formulation of reports or recom mendations to the parties

and the Court. The Court retains the power to ensure that the Monitor is provided with all necessary and

relevant information and documents.

B. For the period of time preceding full implementation of the electronic data base of 7S-48a information,

see Section lI(C), on a quarterly basis the City shall provide to the plaintiffs, the Monitor, and the Court

relevant data regarding stops and frisks, including the information and documents listed in Section Il(A).

In this regard, the City shall provide all 7S-48a forms that are part of the City's audits of stop and frisk

5


practices (under the supervision of Police Department Inspectors), as well as other relevant forms and

data.

C. Upon implementation of the 75-48a electronic data base, the digitized information in this data base

shall be provided to plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor on a monthly basis.

D. The parties shall analyze and review this data and documentation under agreed upon benchmarks for

measuring compliance with Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania constitutional standards

and, on a semi-annual basis, shall submit their reports and recommendations to the Monitor and the

Court. The benchmarks shall include, but need not be limited to, those developed by the parties in

NAACP v. City of Philadelphia.

E. The City shall implement policies, practices and other measures that the parties agree will foster PPD

compliance with constitutional standards. If the parties disagree on such practices and policies, they shall

separately set forth their positions in a Report to the Monitor. The Monitor shall discuss the matter with

the parties and, if agreement is not reached between the parties, shall issue a formal Report and

Recommendation. The recommendations shall be implemented unless a party objects by filing Objections

with the Court.

F. Upon the filing of such Objections, the Court shall determine whether the recommendations are

appropriately designed to ensure that stop and frisk practices are consistent with constitutional

standards. The Court has the authority under this Agreement to order specific policies, practices and/or

other measures that are necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.

G. Upon a showing of non-compliance with its Orders or of a pattern of violations of the constitutional

rights of the plaintiff class, the Court shall have the power to issue contem pt or other sanctions.

H. In determining whether the City is in compliance with constitutional standards with respect to stop

and frisk policies and practices, the Monitor and the Court may consider among other factors, (1) the

number and nature of stops and frisks that do not comply with constitutional standards under the Fourth

Amendment or Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) all information regarding the reasons provided for stops

and frisks, the resultant "hit-rates," including arrest data, seizures of eVidence, and information resulting

6


from audits and surveys conducted by the parties, (3) racial disparities in stop and frisk practices under

appropriate criteria and benchmarks and under professionally established statistical protocols and

analysis. Non-compliance under the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution may be found

where there are a significant number of unconstitutional stops and/or frisks. Non-compliance under the

Fourteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution may be found where the evidence proves that

there are significant racial disparities in stop and frisk practices that are not explained by non-racial

factors for such disparities, including but not limited to crime rates, suspect-descriptions in stop and frisk

cases, police deployment patterns, or other non-racial factors.

V. Fees a nd Costs

A. The City shall be responsible for reasonable costs and fees of the Monitor.

B. The City shall pay counsel fees and costs to the plaintiffs' attorneys David Rudovsky, Paul Messing,

Mary Catherine Roper (ACLU of Pennsylvania), and Seth Kreimer, and their expert, Professor David

Abrams on an agreed upon hourly basis and subject to an agreed upon annual cap for time spent to date

and for all time spent in the monitoring phase of the litigation. Counsel shall submit invoices for their

time and costs on a semi-annual basis. Any disputes over fees and costs shall be adjudicated by the

Court.

e. Plaintiffs agree to waive fees for work done in the investigation and negotiation of the individual

damage claims of the named plaintiffs.

VI. Miscellaneous

A. The parties shall attempt to negotiate the individual claims of the named plaintiffs. The Court shall

have the authority to resolve these claims by mediation or trial.

B. Members of the plaintiff class may sue for damages for alleged stop and frisk violations and any such

claims shall be considered "related" for purposes of Local Rule, Civ. P. 40.1{c)(1), or other later cognate

rules.

e. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the Court, upon motion of a party, determines that the

provisions regarding data disclosure and analysis, document production, Monitor Reports and

7


Recommendations, and Court review are no longer necessary to ensure that the PPD stop and frisk

policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards.

D. Reports and recommendations of the parties and the Monitor and any Orders of the Court shall be

filed of public record with the Court. All filings will redact personal Information regarding persons subject

to stop and frisks and the parties agree to keep information regarding the identities of persons stopped or

frisked confidential.

E. Neither this Agreement nor any act taken in furtherance of this Agreement by the City or any City

officials or employees is or may be deemed an admission or evidence of the validity of any claims made

by the plaintiffs in the Complaint in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.

F. The Monitor shall not be retained by any party to this litigation in a claim or suit against the

defendants, or any of their officers, employees, or agents. The Monitor shall not testify on behalf of any

party in any new claim or suit against the defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, but may

testify in this action on issues relating to the Monitor's duties or responsibilities. The Monitor shall notify

the defendants upon receipt of a subpoena and/or request for documents and materials that relate to the

Monitor's duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.

8


It is so agreed.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

s/ David Rudovsky David Rudovsky, Esquire

sl Paul Messing Paul Messing, Esquire Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, LLP 718 Arch Street, Suite 501S Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-4400

sl Mary Catherine Roper Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire ACLU of Pennsylvania P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, PA 19106

s/ Seth Kreimer Seth Kreimer, Esquire University of Pennsylvania Law School 3900 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

Counsel for Defendants:

s/ Shelley R. Smith Shelley R. Smith, City Solicitor

s/ Craig M. Straw Craig M. Straw, Chief Deputy City Solicitor Law Department 1515 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19102

s/ Carlton L. Johnson Archer & Greiner, P.e. One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103

Approved by the Court:

~~4 United States District Judge

U....,.,- 21" Z,d(f

9


subscribe sign in u.s. america has a stop and frisk ...pae.fd.org/files/stop_frisk.pdfu.s. america...

Documents